ncloud_change_server_spec

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description mainly adds the condition of a stopped server. It does not elaborate on post-change behavior (e.g., whether the server remains stopped or needs to be started). No contradictions with annotations.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 change operation, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the resource, and a key condition. However, it lacks details on what the return value is or how to verify the change. Given the annotations and schema, it is adequate but could be slightly improved.

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%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for the two parameters (serverInstanceNo and serverProductCode). The schema already explains them adequately.

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), the resource (server spec/product code), and a key condition (stopped server instance). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ncloud_start_server, ncloud_stop_server, ncloud_create_server, etc.

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 mentions the prerequisite that the server must be stopped, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives (e.g., if the server is running, use ncloud_stop_server first).

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