ncloud_ncs_put_bucket_cors

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive overwrite behavior ('Replaces the whole configuration') and adds validation constraints beyond the schema: one '*' wildcard per origin/header item and no wildcards in ExposeHeader. The 'Up to 100 rules' and per-rule requirements partly duplicate the schema, but the wildcard rules are genuinely additive.

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?

Four sentences with no fluff; the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the overwrite behavior and then the key validation rules. The compact semicolon-separated constraint list is dense but every clause adds value. Minor inefficiency: the 100-rule and required-field limits already exist in the schema.

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: purpose, overwrite behavior, and non-obvious wildcard constraints. It does not discuss permissions or error conditions, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation. Complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 both parameters and their nested constraints. The description adds the replacement semantics tying bucketName and corsRules together, but does not add per-parameter detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the CORS configuration of a Ncloud Storage bucket' with the API endpoint (PUT /?cors). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools ncloud_ncs_get_bucket_cors and ncloud_ncs_delete_bucket_cors, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 'Replaces the whole configuration' conveys an important usage trait — this is a full overwrite, not a merge — implying the agent must supply all rules. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (get/delete CORS) or state when to prefer them; the guidance is implied rather than made explicit.

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