ncloud_cdss_change_node_spec

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds a behavioral constraint: downgrades are refused by the service, and it explains how to detect this (isChangeSpec=false). This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a specific failure condition and its detection mechanism.

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 with a clear main action and a well-placed warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds the warning without extra fluff. No wasted words.

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 change operation with three parameters (one required), the description covers the main purpose and the critical precondition (downgrade check). It references the exact getter tools for verification. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the operation returns a typical result. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already cover all three parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, only mentions the tool's purpose. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra semantic value for 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 the action: 'Change server spec for nodes in a CDSS cluster.' It identifies the specific resource (CDSS cluster nodes) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node_spec_for_change (read-only) and other services' change_node_spec tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to check isChangeSpec via two named getter tools before proceeding, warning that downgrades are refused. This provides a concrete precondition and points to the correct alternative tools for verification. It does not explicitly state 'use this tool for changing node specs' but that is obvious from the name, and it doesn't mention when to avoid using it beyond the downgrade case.

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