ncloud_nks_update_node_pool_subnet

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful eligibility constraint (manual-assignment requirement) beyond the annotations, but it omits the important behavior of whether the supplied list replaces the existing subnets entirely and what impact the change has on running nodes.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the action and endpoint come first and the eligibility constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 narrow three-parameter PATCH with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the key restriction, which is nearly enough. The remaining gap is the replace-all-list semantics and any operational impact on the node pool, which an agent would benefit from knowing before invoking.

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 instanceNo, clusterUuid, and subnetNoList are already documented, including the subnets[] serialization detail. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints, which is an acceptable baseline given 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Update the subnets of a node pool") and even cites the underlying PATCH endpoint, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like ncloud_nks_add_subnet or ncloud_nks_update_node_pool, but the scope is narrow enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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 states a clear precondition/exclusion: it is only usable when subnets are manually assigned, not auto-assigned. That is a genuine when-not rule, but no alternative tool is named for either the auto-assigned case or for adding rather than replacing subnets.

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