ncloud_delete_policy

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the permanent nature of the deletion and the immediate revocation of permissions for every sub account, group, and role. It also surfaces the confirm=true execution requirement and the system-managed policy guardrail. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences carry the destructive warning, the consequence, the prerequisite check, the exclusion, and the execution instruction. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides all essential context for safe invocation: what is destroyed, the impact scope, the prerequisite read operation, the policy-type restriction, and the confirmation flag. No output schema exists, but for a destructive delete tool the description is sufficiently complete; the only minor omission is naming the batch-delete sibling, which does not impede calling this tool.

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%, with both confirm and policyId fully described in the input schema. The description reiterates confirm=true but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete a user-created (custom) IAM policy.' It also clarifies scope by excluding system-managed policies. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ncloud_delete_policies (plural), so the agent must infer that this tool handles a single policy rather than batch deletion.

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 gives actionable guidance: check ncloud_get_policy_resources before deleting, and notes that system-managed policies cannot be deleted, which is a clear exclusion. It also instructs the agent to set confirm=true to execute. It stops short of naming ncloud_delete_policies as the alternative for batch operations, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance is incomplete.

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