ncloud_cm2_request_cloud_basic_certificate

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: the DCV mechanism (DNS CNAME), the required post-call follow-up, dryRun preview behavior, public-zone-only scope, and a critical auth caveat (main-account API key required; Sub Account keys get HTTP 403). That auth disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 workflow, then constraints; every clause is actionable. The provenance tail ('confirmed by Ncloud support; verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR') is slightly verbose but justifies a high-stakes auth claim, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists and this is a mutating request tool, so the description must cover behavior — and it does: DCV flow, follow-up tool, preview option, scope limit, and the auth blocker. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or fail predictably.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including validationMethod and dryRun. The description restates validationMethod D and dryRun=true without adding format, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Request) plus a specific resource (free Cloud Basic SSL certificate), and the 'Cloud Basic' / 'Certificate Manager 2.0' qualifier cleanly separates it from the advanced and global-edge certificate request siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 clear when-to-use context, an explicit exclusion ('Public zone only'), and routes the agent to the follow-up tool ncloud_cm2_get_dcv_status for the CNAME record. It stops short of naming the alternative request tool (advanced/global-edge) as the 'use X instead' path, so it's strong but not fully closed-loop.

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