ncloud_nks_update_lb_subnet

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating the operation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description 'Update...' is consistent with mutation, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential state requirements or side effects, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description's contribution is limited.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description adequately states the core function. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that both lbPublicSubnetNo and lbPrivateSubnetNo are optional (only clusterUuid is required), allowing partial updates. Despite this minor gap, it is largely sufficient.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with clear descriptions (clusterUuid, lbPublicSubnetNo, lbPrivateSubnetNo). The description 'Update load balancer subnet' does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update load balancer subnet for an NKS cluster' clearly states the action (Update), the target resource (load balancer subnet), and the scope (NKS cluster). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ncloud_nks_add_subnet (which adds a subnet) and ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_subnet (which updates node pool subnets), making the purpose specific and 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 implies usage for modifying the load balancer subnet of an NKS cluster, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ncloud_nks_add_subnet or ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_subnet), nor does it provide prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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