ncloud_change_mongodb_secondary_count

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to reiterate that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., impact on existing connections, downtime). With annotations covering the baseline, score is 3.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though slightly more structure (e.g., listing key parameters) could improve readability. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does not explain return values or post-execution state. It adequately covers the main purpose but lacks details like constraints or effects.

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 schema documents all parameters. The description mentions 'Secondary (Member/Arbiter)' but does not add further meaning beyond what the parameter names and schema descriptions already provide. Baseline is 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 ('Change') and the resource ('number of Secondary (Member/Arbiter) servers in a MongoDB instance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_change_mongodb_mongos_count and ncloud_change_mongodb_config_count by specifying 'Secondary' servers.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to change secondary count vs. shard count). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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