ncloud_ncs_put_object_legal_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the mutating effect ('cannot be deleted or overwritten... OFF releases it') and the prerequisite, which is meaningful. It does not mention error cases, permissions, or response behavior, but the core behavioral impact is well disclosed.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver the action, endpoint, behavioral effect, and a prerequisite without any filler. The key semantics are front-loaded before the supporting detail.

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 toggle operation, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, the protection effect, how to release it, and the required bucket configuration. All parameters are already documented in the schema, and no meaningful return payload is needed for an agent to invoke this 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%, so the schema fully documents bucketName, key, status, and versionId. The description adds legal-hold semantics and the Object Lock prerequisite, but does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline 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 action ('Turn ... legal hold ON or OFF'), names the exact resource and endpoint, and explains the functional difference from retention by noting that legal hold protects objects regardless of retention. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ncloud_ncs_get_object_legal_hold and ncloud_ncs_put_object_retention.

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 a clear precondition ('The bucket must have Object Lock enabled') and makes the operation's context obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use when...', but the read/write pairing with get_object_legal_hold and the retention contrast are implicitly clear.

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