ncloud_create_policy

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the 500-policy-per-account quota, dryRun's limited 'echo only' semantics, and (in the schema) the server-side rewriting of '*' into product-scoped NRNs. These go well beyond what annotations alone convey and help set correct expectations.

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 with no filler: purpose, quota, and validation guidance each earn their place. The most important scoping intent is front-loaded, and the dryRun/validate distinction is clearly separated.

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 complex nested-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, quota, validation flow, and dryRun behavior—arguably enough to invoke correctly. It does not state what the response contains or whether the created policy is immediately active, a minor gap given the rich schema and sibling get_policy_detail tool.

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 parameter definitions already carry the semantic burden. The top-level description adds minimal parameter detail beyond dryRun and the quota; it does not need to compensate for missing schema info, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a user-created (custom) IAM policy') and immediately clarifies its role: scoping a sub account to specific actions/resources rather than using a broad system-managed policy. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose and prevents confusion with policy read/update/delete siblings.

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 explicit guidance to call ncloud_validate_policy first for real server-side validation and clarifies that dryRun=true only echoes the request shape, which is a meaningful when-to-use distinction. It does not explicitly contrast with update_policy or delete_policy, but the primary alternative (validation) is well covered.

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