ncloud_cm2_reissue_certificate

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the DCV mechanism, a safe preview path via dryRun, a public-zone-only constraint, and a critical auth requirement (main-account API key; Sub Account keys get HTTP 403). The remaining gap is what reissuance does to the existing certificate (whether it becomes invalid or the swap is non-disruptive), which matters for a mutation of this kind.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, in four tight sentences with no filler. The dated support-citation tail is unusual but justifies the otherwise surprising 403 claim, so it earns its place; only minor trimming is possible.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, validation method, preview mode, zone scope, and the account-key prerequisite. It is nearly complete, lacking only the post-reissue state of the prior certificate and any rate-limit retry guidance.

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 every parameter including dryRun, validationMethod, and csr is already documented in the schema. The description's param-related claims (validationMethod D = DNS CNAME, dryRun preview) restate schema content rather than adding new meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb (reissue), resource (certificate), and mechanism (from a new CSR), and pins the service to Certificate Manager 2.0. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like ncloud_cm2_request_advanced_certificate or ncloud_cm2_register_external_certificate 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 concrete usage context: DCV is DNS CNAME (validationMethod D), dryRun=true previews, public zone only. These implicitly exclude private-zone and non-DCV flows. However, it never names a specific alternative sibling (e.g., initial issuance vs reissue), so routing guidance stops just short of explicit when-not.

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