ncloud_sens_update_project

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and the 'at least one field' validation rule, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as partial-update semantics or permissions. It adds some value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the essential constraint is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 4-parameter update with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description covers the purpose, the constraint, and the relevant fields. It does not describe the response, but no output schema exists and return values are not necessary for invocation. A note mapping 'enabled channels' to useSms/useKkoBizMsg would make it slightly more complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds one meaningful piece of semantics not in the schema: that at least one mutable field (besides projectId) must be provided, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('SENS project'), and the exact mutable fields ('description or enabled channels'), plus the HTTP method. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_project, delete_project, list_projects, and get_project.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing SENS project's settings and adds a validation constraint ('At least one field must be given'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like the project needing to exist. Usage context is clear but implicit.

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