ncloud_gtm_create_policy

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

The description states 'Create' which implies a write operation, and annotations provide destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions beyond what the schema implies. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and components. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every word adds value.

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 complex creation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention required parameters beyond the name, conditional requirements (e.g., geoMapId for GEO/CIDR), or what the return value contains. More context is needed for correct use.

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 parameters. The description mentions 'load balancing, monitor, and resource groups', which maps to lbType, monitor, and resourceGroups, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema field descriptions. Baseline for high coverage is 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 clearly states the action (Create), the resource (Global Traffic Manager policy), and key components (load balancing, monitor, resource groups). It unambiguously differentiates from sibling tools like ncloud_gtm_update_policy or ncloud_gtm_delete_policy.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile) or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for other operations, but the description offers no comparative context.

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