ncloud_datafence_change_fence_infra

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, yet the description explicitly advertises "return" of Datafence servers and NAS volumes (and the schema enumerates DELETE actions). Releasing/terminating infrastructure is a destructive, non-idempotent-in-effect operation, so the description contradicts the annotation's safety profile. It also never says changes are irreversible or what happens to data on DELETE.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the create/update/return scope before the invocation hints. It is efficient, though the middle sentence about actionType is largely redundant with the schema.

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 compound create/update/delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the call surface but omits the operational consequences an agent needs: what DELETE/return actually removes, whether the operation is reversible, and any permission or provisioning-order constraints. Adequate for calling, thin for consequences.

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 every parameter (actionType, specCode, nasSize, serverInstanceNo, dryRun, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the actionType-per-item pattern and repeats the 1-4 server bound already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb set (Create, update, return) and named resources (Datafence servers 1-4, NAS volumes), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling ncloud_datafence_change_fence_nas_volume, which performs a NAS-only subset, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

"Each list item carries an actionType" and "Use dryRun=true to preview" give usable invocation guidance, but there is no statement of when to pick this tool over the NAS-only or box variants, nor prerequisites (permissions, ordering, when DELETE is allowed). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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