ncloud_update_integration

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, covering basic safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether omitted optional fields (headers, type) are reset or if this is a full replacement. It does not contradict annotations.

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, focused sentence that states the action and resource with no filler, redundancy, or wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easily digestible.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic tool selection but lacks important behavioral details like update semantics (full vs partial) and what the response contains. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the description alone is thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Cloud Insight integration'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/list/get integration. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 usage is implied by the word 'existing' (suggesting the integration must already exist), but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor provide prerequisites or exclusions. It relies on the agent to infer from the CRUD sibling set.

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