ncloud_edge_edit_edge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses full-replacement semantics (not a partial patch) and two immutable fields (regionType, serviceDomain must retain current values). It omits permission/authorization requirements, side effects on live traffic, and reversibility.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the immutable-field caveat placed last where it is most needed. No filler.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call-time facts: full-body replacement and immutability of two fields. It is adequate, though it could say more about authorization or response 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating the expected fields of the configuration JSON (profileId, edgeName, distributionConfig, etc.) beyond the schema's bare 'JSON string', and flags which fields are immutable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing Global Edge CDN edge configuration.' An agent can immediately tell this is a mutation of an existing edge rather than create/delete/get. It does not name a specific sibling (e.g., ncloud_edge_create_edge) to differentiate further.

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?

Implied usage is present: it tells you to supply the full configuration and to pass current values for regionType/serviceDomain, which signals this is a full-replacement edit. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. create/delete or prerequisites, and the 'get current config from ncloud_edge_get_edge' guidance lives only in the schema description.

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