ncloud_resource_detach_group

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive' and explains that nothing happens without confirm=true. This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by clarifying that the operation is gated behind a confirmation flag, which is critical behavioral information. The description's warning is consistent with the annotations, and the safety mechanism is well disclosed.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the most important information (destructive warning) before stating the action. It's appropriately sized and every word earns its place. It could be slightly improved by adding a note about the sibling attach operation, but as-is it is efficient and readable.

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 destructive operation with three parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it does and the critical confirm gate. However, it doesn't mention the return value or whether the operation is reversible, and there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., what happens if a resource doesn't exist in the group). The output schema absence means the agent doesn't know what to expect as a response, but the core calling context is sufficient.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter documentation, with descriptions for confirm, groupId, and nrnList. The description adds value by emphasizing the confirm parameter's role ('Set confirm=true to execute'), but it doesn't add additional meaning to groupId or nrnList beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, a 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 the verb 'Remove' and the resource ('one or more resources from a resource group'), which is specific enough to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ncloud_resource_attach_group or ncloud_resource_detach_tag, though the name and action make it fairly clear. The destructive warning adds important context but the core purpose is stated simply and effectively.

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 tells the agent that confirm=true is required to execute, which is a critical usage guideline. It gives a clear context for when to use the tool (when removing resources from a group), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Given the sibling tools, an explicit note about using attach_group for the reverse operation would have improved this score.

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