ncloud_cm2_register_domain

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden – and it does: it discloses the authorization requirement (main-account API key), the concrete failure mode (Sub Account keys rejected with HTTP 403), and the DNS-zone constraint, with a verification note. That is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation context an agent needs before calling.

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, then dcvType semantics, scope, and auth. Every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical 'confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02' is slightly extra but supports the reliability of the auth warning.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time context: prerequisites, scope, credential type, and parameter semantics. It omits the post-registration workflow (DCV verification via a sibling tool) and what the registration returns, which an agent sequencing this operation would want.

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 both enums are already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning the schema lacks – that PTXT means write the TXT record once and reuse it while TXT creates a new record per issuance – clarifying the practical consequence of the enum choice.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Register a domain for certificate issuance') plus the immediate follow-on action ('start its DCV'), and scopes it ('Public zone only'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like ncloud_cm2_list_domains, ncloud_cm2_delete_domain, and ncloud_cm2_get_dcv_status without opening 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 explicit selection guidance for the dcvType choice (PTXT = set TXT once and reuse vs TXT = new record per issuance) and states a precondition (public zone only, main-account API key). It never names an alternative tool or says what to do after registration (e.g., poll ncloud_cm2_get_dcv_status), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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