ncloud_nks_add_subnet

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

With only destructiveHint=false in the annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden; it does add real value by disclosing the PATCH semantics and the 5-subnet ceiling, which tells the agent this is a mutating, capacity-bounded operation. However it says nothing about what happens to existing subnets, whether cluster/node-pool restarts are triggered, or permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the endpoint/limit relegated to a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical mixes API plumbing with a genuinely useful constraint.

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 small 2-parameter mutation with a thin annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what is being changed and one limit, which is adequate but not rich. It omits side effects, failure modes (e.g. exceeding the limit), and any indication of the response.

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 clusterUuid and subnetNoList are already fully documented in the schema; the description only echoes the concept of a subnet list. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Add subnets to an NKS cluster') and even names the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what the call mutates. It is distinguishable from nearby subnet-flavored siblings such as ncloud_nks_update_lb_subnet or ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_subnet, though it never names those alternatives.

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 hard constraint (max 5 subnets per cluster) but no guidance on when to choose this tool over node-pool or LB subnet operations, and no preconditions such as required cluster state or permissions. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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