ncloud_delete_policies

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them: the immediate blast radius ('Every sub account, group and role they are assigned to loses those permissions immediately'), the system-managed exclusion, and the confirm=true execution gate. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotations convey.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the destructive warning leads, then the action, then the consequence, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place and no information is duplicated from 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 destructive batch operation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, the consequence, the limitation, and how to execute. No output schema exists, but for a delete operation the absence of return-value documentation is a minor gap that does not hinder correct invocation.

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 fully documents both confirm ('Must be true to actually execute the destructive operation') and policyIdList ('2 or more... For a single policy use ncloud_delete_policy'). The description's 'Set confirm=true' and 'two or more' reinforce critical safety semantics but add no new information beyond the schema, matching the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 action ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('user-created (custom) IAM policies'), and a precise scope ('two or more... at once'). The 'two or more' qualifier plus the schema's explicit 'For a single policy use ncloud_delete_policy' cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling ncloud_delete_policy that appears in the tool list.

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 conveys when to use this tool: batch deletion of 2+ custom policies, and it states an exclusion ('System-managed policies cannot be deleted'). The routing to the alternative for single-policy deletion lives in the schema parameter description rather than the main description, which keeps this from a 5, but the guidance is present and unambiguous.

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