ncloud_datafence_change_box_infra

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the useful dryRun preview behavior. However, the schema allows actionType=DELETE for NAS volumes and servers, which the description's verbs ('Create, update or return') do not surface — with annotations muted on destructiveness, noting the delete path would have added real value.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the entity scope comes first, then the two operational notes (actionType per item, dryRun preview). No filler, and the most important scoping information is up front.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-list mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the overall shape (multiple resource lists, per-item actionType) and a preview mechanism. It omits references for obtaining fenceId/boxId, but those are documented in the schema itself, so the gap is minor.

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 11 parameters including per-list actionType values and required-for-CREATE/UPDATE/DELETE conditions. The description only repeats the actionType concept and dryRun, adding nothing the schema does not already say. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb set (create/update/return) plus the resource (Box infrastructure) and enumerates the entity types it governs — connect/Linux/Windows/Tensorflow servers, NAS, Hadoop clusters. This clearly differentiates it from the datafence-level sibling ncloud_datafence_change_fence_infra and from the narrower ncloud_datafence_change_box_nas_volume, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 one concrete usage rule ('Each list item carries an actionType', 'Use dryRun=true to preview'), which is real guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this tool versus the more specific NAS-volume or fence-infra change tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g., fetch boxId from list_boxes first). Usage is implied rather than framed.

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