ncloud_drm_disable_site

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds a workflow constraint (before policy modification) but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like what happens to the site while disabled or whether prerequisites (e.g., site exists) are required. This adds some context but not rich detail.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds essential usage context. There is zero redundant or filler content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter, state-change tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose and timing. It could mention what a successful response looks like or error conditions, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with 'Site ID to disable.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema—it only restates the resource type. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, and no extra parameter guidance is provided.

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: 'Disable (deactivate) a DRM site.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable, create, update, get, and list. The parenthetical 'deactivate' reinforces the meaning.

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 second sentence provides explicit usage context: 'Disable a site before modifying its active policy.' This tells the agent when to use this tool relative to a workflow. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for a simple disable operation.

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