ncloud_datafence_return_box

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by enumerating what is destroyed (servers, NAS, clusters) and disclosing the two-step confirm gate. It stops short of stating irreversibility or required permissions, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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, zero waste, and the destructive warning plus scope are front-loaded ahead of the execution instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the safety profile and blast radius. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit irreversibility/auth context, which is minor given the destructiveHint annotation.

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 fenceId, boxId, and confirm in detail. The description's mention of confirm=true largely restates the schema's own description, adding no new syntax or meaning, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Return (terminate) a Box') and importantly disambiguates that 'return' means terminate, plus names the scope (all its servers, NAS and clusters). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ncloud_datafence_create_box or ncloud_datafence_change_box_infra, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

'Set confirm=true to execute' is a usage instruction but concerns the parameter gate rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. The when-to-use is only implied by the purpose; no alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., dependencies) are named.

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