ncloud_sourcedeploy_request_deploy_approval

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain whether the action is asynchronous, whether it creates a pending approval record, what permissions are required, or what effects it has on the deployment process. The sparse description leaves the agent to infer implementation details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, minimally sized sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, containing no filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully contextualize the tool. It does not clarify the relationship to 'approve_deploy' or 'start_deploy', nor does it mention the approval workflow context or what happens after the request is made. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions for all three parameters (projectId, stageId, scenarioId) are present and clear, giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Request approval') on a specific resource ('a scenario deployment'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'approve_deploy' by emphasizing the request step rather than the approval action itself. However, it could more explicitly contrast with related deployment tools to eliminate ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ncloud_sourcedeploy_approve_deploy' or 'ncloud_sourcedeploy_start_deploy'. The description does not mention lifecycle context, prerequisites, or differentiation from other sourcedeploy operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.