ncloud_sens_register_sms_unsubscribes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the HTTP method, endpoint, and the ≤1,000 number batch limit. It does not disclose idempotency, duplicate handling, or reversibility, but given the annotation coverage and the simple add-to-list nature, the added context is adequate though not rich.

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?

A single compact sentence immediately states the action, resource, endpoint, and key limit. The inclusion of the Korean term adds clarity without bloat, and there is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus parameter docs cover purpose, constraints, limits, and error hints. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on choosing between register/list/delete siblings, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completion gap for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%: serviceId is thoroughly documented with NRN format, defaults, discovery method, and error interpretation, while clientTelNos has pattern, min/max, and a short description. The description's mention of '≤1,000 numbers' reinforces the schema, so it adds little beyond what structured fields already say.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('phone numbers on the SMS unsubscribe list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like ncloud_sens_list_sms_unsubscribes and ncloud_sens_delete_sms_unsubscribes. It also adds the exact HTTP endpoint and body format, making the operation unmistakable.

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 and parameter docs provide clear context: it registers numbers onto a blocklist via a specific endpoint, and the serviceId schema explains how to find the service ID and what a 'Forbidden' response means. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over listing or deleting unsubscribes.

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