ncloud_register_external_certificate

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

The description only states the action without revealing behavioral traits like prerequisites, validation, or post-registration effects. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden but adds no extra transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly more structure (e.g., separating purpose from details) could improve, but it remains 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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple registration tool given the schema richness. However, it lacks details on return values or what happens after registration (e.g., storage, availability). Overall adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states it registers an external SSL certificate from a third-party CA, providing specific examples like Let's Encrypt. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_pca_issue_end_cert which handle internal CAs, and from list/delete certificate tools.

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 external third-party certificates by name and examples, but does not explicitly exclude internal CA scenarios or mention alternative tools. The context is adequate for an agent to differentiate, though direct 'when to use' guidance is absent.

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