ncloud_cdss_reset_cmak_password

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a password-reset (mutatory) operation that is under a deprecation. It does not document potential side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what becomes of the previous password. The description does add the important deprecation context, but it is minimal for a security assessment. It does not contradict anything, but it leaves are too broad to warrant a high score 4.

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?

Two sentences, with no runtime state. The first sentence and the core action is a strong first sentence. The second sentence provides deprecation context without making it a long. The sentence keeps the description to ~40 words and is clearly front-loaded. Every phrase is informative.

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 simple parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description plus schema contains enough to call it correctly: both parameters are known parameters are required, and the first sentence says

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 baseline is 3. The description does not materially extend the schema: 'CMAK access account password' already maps to the encrypted `kafkaManagerUserPassword` parameter, and `serviceGroupInstanceNo` remains the cluster instance number—both fully documented in the schema. No additional parameter meaning or purpose is provided above the structured schema.

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 'Reset the CMAK access account password for a CDSS cluster', which is a clear verb-resource combination. It clearly identifies what is being acted on (a password for a CDSS cluster) and differentiates itself from sibling tools in the same service family such as restart_skafka or change_kafka_config. It does not explicitly name an alternative to compare against, so it lacks the explicit sibling distinction required for a 5.

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 usage: the operation is for password resets, but it does not state when to prefer this over any alternative or mention conditions under which it should be avoided. The deprecation note provides cautionary context ('may be discontinued') but stops short of providing clear when/when-not guidance. This falls into 3 = implied usage via the standard.

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