ncloud_serverless_update_cluster

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral detail. It discloses merge-patch semantics, the 202 Operation response, the fact that only listed fields change, that disabling scaleOut resets the replica range, and that dryRun previews changes—substantial context beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, no filler. The main action and endpoint are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: merge-patch behavior, affected fields, the reset side effect, and the dry-run option. Every sentence 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 mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers the operation, the merge behavior, the side effect on scaleOut, and the preview mechanism. It stops short of explaining how to interpret the returned 202 Operation or how to poll it, but the mention of '202 Operation' gives a sufficient hint.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates by explaining key behaviors: unit requires min+max, backupConfig requires retentionDays when given, and setting scaleOut.enabled=false resets the replica range. This adds meaning beyond the schema's field-level descriptions, though not every nested parameter is individually explained.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Update a Cloud DB Serverless cluster' and specifies the exact endpoint (PATCH /mysql/v1/clusters/{clusterName}). It is unambiguous against siblings like serverless_create_cluster or serverless_delete_cluster, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is a merge-patch update where 'Only the given fields change,' and it advises 'Use dryRun=true to preview.' This provides practical when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with create/delete/restore siblings.

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