ncloud_cdss_disable_public_domain

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about CMAK being phased out and the operation potentially being discontinued, which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand risk. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the deprecation note is concise and relevant. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 single-parameter disable operation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient information. It states what it does, the deprecation risk, and implies the resource. It lacks details like prerequisites or exact effects, but these are minor for such a straightforward tool.

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 the single parameter (serviceGroupInstanceNo) is already documented as 'Cluster instance number'. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema handles the semantics.

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: disabling the public domain for CMAK management tool access. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of CMAK distinguishes it from the sibling disable_public_endpoint and the inverse enable_public_domain. 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to disable public domain for CMAK), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like ncloud_cdss_disable_public_endpoint or mention when not to use it. The deprecation warning adds context but does not provide explicit usage guidance relative to other tools.

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