ncloud_cm2_register_external_certificate

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real behavioral context: the operation replaces an existing certificate in place via certificateNo, is public-zone-only, and fails with HTTP 403 for Sub Account keys (with a dated verification note). It does not describe the response or whether renewal preserves validity dates, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the distinguishing alternative; every sentence carries routing or precondition value. The trailing verification parenthetical ('confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02...') is slightly more provenance than an agent needs.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, account/auth constraints, and scope limits. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% and each parameter is already documented in the schema, including certificateNo's renew-vs-create semantics. The description repeats that certificateNo drives renewal but adds no new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Re-register (renew) an existing external certificate in place... or register a new one') scoped to Certificate Manager 2.0, and explicitly names the sibling ncloud_register_external_certificate as the alternative path. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: prefer ncloud_register_external_certificate (1.0, any key) for first-time registration, and use this tool only when the 2.0 certificateNo renewal path is needed. It also states the preconditions (public zone only, main-account API key) that gate usage.

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