ncloud_kms_add_acl_rule

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful effect context by stating that the added IPs will 'allow token requests from those IPs', but it does not disclose whether the operation appends to or replaces existing ACL entries, what permissions are required, or whether the ACL must already be active.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every clause contributes to identifying the operation and its effect.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the core action and effect. However, it omits operationally relevant context such as whether the ACL must be enabled, whether the add is additive or replacing, and what the caller should expect afterward.

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%, with both keyTag and ipList documented directly in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning such as IP format constraints or key tag derivation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Add), resource (IPv4 addresses to the IP ACL of a KMS key), and effect (allow token requests from those IPs). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling delete_acl_rule by action, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as ncloud_kms_enable_ip_acl or ncloud_kms_get_acl_rule_list.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never mentions prerequisites (e.g., whether IP ACL must already be enabled) or points to alternatives like enable_ip_acl or delete_acl_rule. The effect statement implies a use case, but there is no explicit routing.

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