ncloud_put_bucket_acl

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (setting ACL) without revealing side effects (overwrite behavior), permissions required, idempotency, or error conditions. The agent lacks key context for invoking this mutation tool safely.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. However, it is extremely terse and could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for key behavior) without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but it lacks an output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success indication, error handling). Missing information about return values or failure modes makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the invocation outcome.

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% (both 'bucketName' and 'acl' are described in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond mentioning 'canned ACL' in the overview, which aligns with the acl enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already 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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'access control list of an Object Storage bucket', and specifies the method 'using a canned ACL', which distinguishes it from other ACL-related tools (e.g., ncloud_put_object_acl for objects, ncloud_get_bucket_acl for reading).

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 that this tool is for setting bucket ACLs with predefined (canned) values, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it. Siblings like ncloud_put_object_acl exist, but no differentiation is offered.

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