ncloud_ncs_put_object_retention

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses the most consequential behavior: COMPLIANCE retention can never be shortened or removed before retainUntilDate, GOVERNANCE may be overridden with bypassGovernanceRetention, and clearing only works for GOVERNANCE. This materially informs an agent about the risk of the operation and matches the idempotent/destructive hints with no contradiction.

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 the purpose front-loaded and every subsequent sentence covering a distinct, high-value constraint. No filler or repeated schema text.

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 destructive, irreversible-capable operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter dependencies, irreversibility, and the clear path. An agent has enough to call it correctly without reading external docs.

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?

Although the schema fully documents all 8 parameters, the description adds cross-parameter semantics not obvious from individual fields: the mode/confirm dependency, the clear/bypass interaction, and the retained-bucket prerequisite. This is meaningful value beyond the 100%-covered 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Set or clear the Object Lock retention of an object') and the exact API verb (PUT /{key}?retention). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/legal-hold tools such as ncloud_ncs_get_object_retention and ncloud_ncs_put_object_legal_hold.

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?

It gives clear operational conditions: bucket must have Object Lock enabled, retainUntilDate must be future, clear is only for GOVERNANCE with bypass, and COMPLIANCE requires confirm=true. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use get_object_retention to inspect,' so it stops short of a 5.

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