ncloud_update_monitor_group

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds only the precondition that the group must already exist, without disclosing whether parameters are merged or fully replaced or how the update affects associated rules.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler or repetition. Every word adds value.

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 three-parameter update tool with good schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is sufficient for selection. It could optionally mention how to retrieve the monitorGroupId or clarify that groupName/resourceList are optional, but the schema already covers those details.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description (e.g., 'New name for the monitor group'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('existing Cloud Insight monitoring target group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/get/delete monitor group tools. It accurately represents the tool's function.

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 'existing' qualifier implies this tool is for modifying an already-created monitor group, not for creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is mostly inferred from the operation name.

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