ncloud_add_network_acl_outbound

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

The annotation provides destructiveHint: false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action 'Add'. There is no discussion of effects on existing rules, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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, clear sentence that is concise and front-loaded. While it could include more context, it avoids verbosity and unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—8 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and potential constraints like priority uniqueness and valid protocol codes—the description is insufficient. It fails to synthesize key information from the schema or provide usage hints, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('outbound rule to a Network ACL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like inbound or removal. However, it does not specify that the rule applies to a particular ACL identified by networkAclNo, which could be inferred.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., inbound rules, setting ACL description). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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