ncloud_ncs_put_object

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It makes the write nature explicit ('Upload', 'PUT'), surfaces the dryRun preview safety feature, and names the optional headers (storage class, SSE, Object Lock). Gaps remain: no mention of overwrite semantics for existing keys, required permissions, side effects, or what the dryRun preview returns. Solid but not rich.

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?

A single well-structured ~40-word paragraph that front-loads the verb, resource, and HTTP method before details. The purpose and dryRun hint earn their place, though the storage class parenthetical duplicates schema content one-for-one and could be trimmed without loss.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and empty annotations, coverage is decent: purpose, method, optional headers, and preview behavior are all present. However, it omits what the response contains, how overwrites behave, and the fact that dryRun already defaults to true. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need filled at call time.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description re-states the storage class enum values that the schema already documents verbatim and adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. The text-object phrasing confirms the body is string content but that is also already covered by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb + resource + HTTP method: 'Upload a text object to a Ncloud Storage bucket (PUT /{key})'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling NCS tools like ncloud_ncs_get_object, ncloud_ncs_head_object, ncloud_ncs_copy_object, and ncloud_ncs_delete_object — the agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening any schema.

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 verb and PUT method make the intended use case reasonably clear (uploading a single text object to NCS storage), and 'Use dryRun=true to preview' gives a how-to-safely instruction. However, it never explicitly contrasts alternatives or states when not to use it — e.g., no mention that multipart uploads, copies, or other object operations are handled by sibling tools.

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