ncloud_dataforest_set_quota

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's burden is reduced. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately, affect running jobs, or require a restart). It does not contradict annotations.

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, short sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key information, though it could be slightly more structured for completeness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the tool's complexity (changing resource limits), the description is too sparse. It does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated quota, confirmation, error), leaving the agent without a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already provided. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the necessary work.

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 clearly states the action ('Change') and the resource ('HDFS quota for a Data Forest account'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_account, delete_account, and get_account_detail by focusing specifically on quota modification.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to adjust quota vs. create a new account or modify other settings). There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency limits, or conditions under which quota changes are appropriate.

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