ncloud_update_asg

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only a list of example settings and does not disclose whether unspecified settings remain unchanged or how the update is applied (e.g., rolling, immediate). It doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the example fields.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema details or extraneous information.

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?

For a 7-parameter update tool with annotations but no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose and common settings effectively. However, it does not explain that only provided parameters are updated (unchanged settings persist) or what the response indicates, leaving some ambiguity for the agent to infer operational semantics.

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?

The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description's examples (min/max size, desired capacity, cooldown) merely reinforce schema fields without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource ('existing Auto Scaling Group configuration') and provides concrete examples of the config fields (min/max size, desired capacity, cooldown), distinguishing it from create/delete ASG tools and ncloud_set_desired_capacity.

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?

The description implies the tool is for modifying an existing ASG configuration, but it does not mention any alternatives such as ncloud_set_desired_capacity for single-parameter updates or specify when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, making the usage context only implicit rather than explicit.

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