ncloud_gtm_update_geo_cidr_map

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation hints. It does not clarify whether updates are full replacement or partial, nor prerequisites like map existence.

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 short sentence, which is concise but nearly tautological. It front-loads the core action but misses opportunities to add value without increasing length significantly.

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 mutation tool with all optional parameters except mapId, the description lacks critical context: whether updates are partial or full, whether the map must exist beforehand, and what happens to unspecified fields. Without an output schema, more description is needed to guide effective 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 each parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 'Update an existing Geo or CIDR map' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (Geo or CIDR map). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get by focusing on modification of existing maps.

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 vs alternatives. While the name implies it's for updating existing maps, it would benefit from contrasting with ncloud_gtm_create_geo_cidr_map for new maps or ncloud_gtm_delete_geo_cidr_map for removal.

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