ncloud_serverless_export_backup

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

The description states that the tool exports a backup to Object Storage, which implies a side effect (creating an export), yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction: the tool is not read-only if it performs an export. The description fails to reconcile or correct the annotation, making the behavioral profile misleading.

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 and efficiently packed: it states the core action, the HTTP endpoint and response code, a required subscription, and a potential error condition—all in two sentences. Every element earns its place, and the most crucial information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the action, endpoint, response code, subscription requirement, and a specific conflict, it omits what the operation returns (though output schema is absent, it might be expected) and does not address the contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation. The missing clarification on the annotation's accuracy diminishes completeness, as the description is otherwise fairly thorough.

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 already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add meaningful parameter-level details beyond what the schema states; it references backupName in the endpoint but does not explain uploadPath beyond the schema's 'Path inside the bucket'. Given the schema's completeness, 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 operation: 'Export a cluster backup to Object Storage' with a specific resource (cluster backup) and destination. It includes the HTTP method, endpoint, and expected response code (202), which disambiguates it from other export tools (e.g., ncloud_export_cache_backup, ncloud_export_mysql_backup). The purpose is specific and 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 provides a necessary precondition ('Requires an Object Storage subscription') and hints at a conflict condition (409 if already being exported or IN_USE), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any sibling tools for comparison. The prerequisite is useful, but the lack of explicit usage guidance limits the score.

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