ncloud_cm2_create_eab_credential

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load and does: it discloses the auth requirement (main-account API key) and the concrete failure mode (Sub Account keys → HTTP 403), which is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from the schema. It stops at 4 because it never describes what the created credential returns or whether creation is reversible.

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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, then constraints in descending importance. Well structured, though the trailing provenance ('confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR') is slightly verbose for the value it adds.

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 and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the operation, its zone/auth constraints, and the primary failure mode. The remaining gap is the return payload (key identifier/secret), which an agent creating an EAB credential would reasonably want described.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-field dependency not present in the schema: NPO_01 (OV) requires organizationNo. That is genuine semantic value linking certificateTypeCode to a conditionally required parameter, lifting it above baseline.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus precise resource ('an ACME EAB credential') and an explicit purpose clause ('so an ACME client can obtain certificates'), scoped to Certificate Manager 2.0. The verb cleanly separates it from the sibling ncloud_cm2_list_eab_credentials and ncloud_cm2_deactivate_eab_credential without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives real preconditions: 'Public zone only' acts as an implicit exclusion, and 'Requires a main-account API key' tells the agent which credential to use. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when to prefer list/deactivate over create, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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