ncloud_cm2_request_global_edge_certificate

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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the dryRun preview behavior, the public-zone-only limit, and a critical non-obvious auth constraint (main-account API key required; Sub Account keys rejected with HTTP 403, with support/verification provenance). This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent cannot get from the 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-loads purpose, then appends dryRun guidance, scope, and auth caveats in a compact four-sentence block. Every sentence carries actionable information, though the dated verification footnote ('verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR') is slightly heavier than needed.

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 certificate-request mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it does, how to preview safely, who can call it, and where it applies. Only the post-request outcome/error surface is left implicit, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including dryRun's preview semantics which the description merely restates. The description adds no new meaning for commonName, dnsName, or certificateName, so it sits at the schema-covered 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Request a Global Edge (CDN) SSL certificate (Certificate Manager 2.0)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling request tools like ncloud_cm2_request_cloud_basic_certificate and ncloud_cm2_request_advanced_certificate by naming the certificate class and the CDN context.

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: dryRun=true for preview, and a scope constraint ('Public zone only'). It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative request tools or the conditions that would select them over this one, so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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