ncloud_cm2_set_renewal_status

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: an authorization constraint (main-account API key required) with a specific failure mode (HTTP 403 for Sub Account keys) and a provenance note. It doesn't describe effects on renewal cycles or response, keeping it below 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?

The core operation and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is efficient. The third sentence is partly verification metadata ('verified 2026-10-02 with NCP_ADMINISTRATOR') that is useful for trust but slightly bloats an otherwise tight definition.

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 2-parameter toggle with no output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers purpose, scope restriction, and the critical auth prerequisite. It omits what a successful change implies for the certificate's subscription lifecycle, which would be the only remaining gap.

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% — certificateNo and renewalYn (with its Y/N enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no format hints, no confirmation that renewalYn maps to enable/disable), so this is the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb pair (enable/disable) and an exact resource (automatic renewal for a certificate), and pins the subsystem via '(Certificate Manager 2.0)' plus the 'Public zone only' boundary. An agent can distinguish this from sibling certificate tools such as ncloud_cm2_reissue_certificate or ncloud_cm2_extend_subscription without inspecting schemas.

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 concrete applicability conditions — public zone certificates only, and main-account API key required (Sub Account keys get HTTP 403). What it does not do is name an alternative tool or state when not to call it (e.g., private/global-edge certificates), 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.