ncloud_datafence_change_box_nas_volume

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 covered. The description adds the admissible size range and the 100 GB step granularity, which is real context, but says nothing about grow-vs-shrink behavior, whether the volume must be detached, or expected downtime.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and appends the only operational constraint. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 mutation tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the constraint an agent most needs. It is slightly thin on operational impact (does resizing require a restart, is shrinking allowed), but nothing essential to issuing the call is missing.

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% and every parameter (fenceId, boxId, instanceNo, volumeSize) is described with cross-references to discovery tools. The description restates the schema's 500-10000 bounds and adds only the 100 GB step, so it sits at the documented 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?

"Resize a Box NAS volume" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the "Box" qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling ncloud_datafence_change_fence_nas_volume and from ncloud_datafence_change_box_infra. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so an agent must infer which scope applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. target fence/box/NAS must already exist), and no mention of the sibling resize tool that operates on fence-level NAS volumes. The size constraint is a validity rule, not usage guidance.

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