ncloud_ncs_put_object_lock_configuration

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: GOVERNANCE can be overridden by users with bypass permission, while COMPLIANCE cannot be shortened or removed by anyone until it expires and requires confirm=true. It also honestly discloses that the write side is not live-confirmed and follows the S3 shape, which is valuable reliability context. 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then mode semantics, prerequisites, and a caveat. Every sentence carries useful information, though the 'Note:' about the unavailable official page is meta and could be seen as slightly verbose. Still, it earns its place as a transparency warning.

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 5-parameter write operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all essential points: what it does, prerequisites, parameter constraints, mode-specific confirm requirement, and even a reliability caveat. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without additional lookups.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the governance/compliance behavior that drives the confirm parameter, emphasizes the exclusivity of days/years, and adds the prerequisite that the bucket must have objectLockEnabled=true. This goes beyond simple restatement.

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 Object Lock default retention of a Ncloud Storage bucket (PUT /?object-lock)'. It clarifies that this is the default bucket-level setting ('every new object gets the given mode'), which distinguishes it from the per-object retention tool (ncloud_ncs_put_object_retention) and from the read-side tool (ncloud_ncs_get_object_lock_configuration). It also mentions the GET side, making the scope unambiguous.

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 clear context and prerequisites: the bucket must have been created with objectLockEnabled=true, and exactly one of days/years must be provided. It indirectly points to the read side ('the read side, GET /?object-lock, is live-confirmed') but does not name the sibling tool ncloud_ncs_get_object_lock_configuration explicitly or provide a when-not-to-use statement. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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