ncloud_sens_create_project

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the lone destructiveHint:false annotation — the validation rule that a service-less project is rejected, the required prior ToS acceptance with the exact error text, and the fact that created channel service IDs are returned. Error semantics and prerequisites are disclosed, which annotations cannot 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then naming rules, then prerequisites, then return value. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the final prerequisite clause is somewhat long.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risk: the ToS prerequisite that will otherwise cause failure, the validation constraint on services, and the return payload. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 projectName pattern is already documented, but the description adds a cross-parameter constraint (enable at least one of useSms/useKkoBizMsg) that the schema does not express. That is genuine added meaning over the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a SENS project') and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /common/v2/projects). This is unambiguous against siblings like ncloud_sens_update_project or ncloud_sens_list_projects.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: at least one of useSms/useKkoBizMsg must be enabled or the API rejects the call, and the account must have already accepted the SENS ToS/Privacy Policy in the console. It never explicitly routes to an alternative sibling, but the prerequisites make the when-to-use context clear.

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