ncloud_remove_network_acl_outbound

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds a warning emoji and repeats the destructive nature, but does not explain idempotency or potential behavioral side effects beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise—one meaningful sentence plus a warning emoji. It efficiently communicates the destructive nature and the confirm requirement. However, it could be slightly improved by listing key required parameters or mentioning that it is for outbound rules only.

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 lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, or integration with other Network ACL tools (e.g., get_network_acl_rules). Given 8 parameters and 4 required, the description is minimal and does not fully prepare the agent for using the tool correctly in a broader workflow.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description mentions the 'confirm' parameter but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Remove an outbound rule') and the resource ('Network ACL'). The tool name includes 'outbound', distinguishing it from siblings like 'remove_network_acl_inbound' and 'add_network_acl_outbound'. The specific verb 'Remove' and resource identification leave no ambiguity.

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 instructs to set confirm=true for execution, which is a key usage requirement. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., removing an inbound rule or adding a rule), nor does it mention prerequisites such as retrieving existing rules.

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