ncloud_remove_acg_outbound_rule

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly warning '⚠️ Destructive' and emphasizing the need for confirm=true to execute. Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds practical safety behavior (confirm flag) and a clear warning, which is valuable for the agent.

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 extremely concise—only one sentence and a warning emoji—yet conveys the essential purpose and a key usage condition. Every word serves a purpose, and the warning is front-loaded for immediate agent awareness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient. The schema fully describes parameters, and the description adds the critical 'confirm=true' requirement. More context about rule identification (e.g., by protocol+IP/ACG sequence) might be helpful, but the schema handles that. Overall, the description, combined with schema and annotations, provides adequate context.

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%, so the description does not need to add much parameter detail. The description does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for all 7 parameters, including constraints like 'Cannot be used with accessControlGroupSequence' for ipBlock. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Remove an outbound rule from an Access Control Group') and the resource (Access Control Group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_remove_acg_inbound_rule and ncloud_add_acg_outbound_rule by specifying 'outbound' and 'remove', making the purpose 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 provides a critical usage requirement: 'Set confirm=true to execute', which prevents accidental destructive actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., ncloud_remove_acg_inbound_rule), though the tool name itself differentiates between inbound/outbound and add/remove.

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