ncloud_datafence_create_box

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

Only destructiveHint=false is provided, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully summarizes the composition rules (Windows required when no Linux, Tensorflow CPU 1-4 / GPU 1-2, dry-run preview), but these largely restate schema constraints and it says nothing about async completion, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; the server composition is compressed into a single readable clause. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description gives an adequate shape of what gets built but omits the operational context an agent needs (e.g. is the Box provisioned asynchronously, what does the response contain on dry-run vs real run). Params are covered by the schema, so the residual gap is behavioral rather than structural.

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 every field, including the password rules, size ranges and the Windows-when-no-Linux rule. The description paraphrases the same grouping without adding format, default, or inter-parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a Box in a Datafence") and then enumerates the constituent servers, which cleanly separates it from read/list siblings like ncloud_datafence_list_boxes or ncloud_datafence_get_box_summary. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ncloud_datafence_change_box_infra for modifying an existing Box. The only usage-like note ("Use dryRun=true to preview") is a per-parameter hint rather than selection guidance.

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