ncloud_functions_unlink_trigger_action

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses the confirm=true execution gate, the concrete effect (the trigger stops invoking the action), and what does NOT happen (neither resource is deleted). The '⚠️ Destructive' prefix duplicates the annotation but reinforces a safety-critical signal. These details add genuine value over the bare annotation.

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 short sentences front-load the destructive warning, then state the action, consequence, and execution gate in order. There is no filler. The '⚠️ Destructive' prefix and the HTTP path are somewhat redundant with the annotations and tool name, which keeps this from a perfect 5.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what happens, what does not happen, and the mandatory confirm flag. The most dangerous detail (execute contract) is explicit. Minor gaps are the absence of a reference to the inverse link_trigger_action operation, idempotency behavior, and return-value expectations.

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 documents all five parameters including the confirm gate, the platform enum with region limitation, and actionName's '{packageName}/{actionName}' format. The description's 'Set confirm=true to execute' merely reinforces schema content rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies per the high-coverage rule.

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 ('Unlink an action from a trigger') and identifies the exact HTTP DELETE endpoint. The clarification 'neither resource is deleted' distinguishes it from the delete_trigger family, and its inverse relationship to the link_trigger_action sibling is evident from naming. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 statement 'The trigger stops invoking the action' implies the use case, but the description never names alternatives such as link_trigger_action to re-establish the link or delete_trigger to destroy the trigger itself. The 'neither resource is deleted' note hints that this is not a deletion tool, yet no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing is provided.

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