ncloud_ncs_complete_multipart_upload

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that parts are assembled into a final object and that the API requires ascending part-number order, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that this is irreversible or finalizes the object, but the term 'final object' implies completion. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a concise instruction on the critical ordering requirement. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool is part of a multipart upload flow and has no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what parameters are needed, and the ordering constraint. It could mention prerequisites (like having an active uploadId) but these are implicit in the schema and sibling tools. Adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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% for all four parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that ETags come from upload_part/upload_part_copy and that parts must be ordered ascending by partNumber. This is meaningful context not present in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Assemble uploaded parts into the final object') with a specific resource (multipart upload) and even cites the HTTP endpoint. It is distinct from sibling multipart operations like upload_part or abort_multipart_upload, so an agent can immediately understand this is the completion step.

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 concrete invocation guidance: pass every part's partNumber and ETag, and notes the ascending order requirement. It implies this is used after parts are uploaded, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like abort_multipart_upload or list_parts. Clear instructions but no explicit when-not conditions.

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