ncloud_serverless_update_log_config

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

Beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: it is synchronous, uses merge-patch (partial update), and returns 200 with the new settings. This tells the agent about the response format and update semantics, which are not covered by annotations. This adds clear value beyond the structured fields.

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 a single sentence that efficiently packs the action, endpoint, HTTP method, merge-patch semantics, and synchronous behavior. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. While dense, it contains no filler and each clause adds meaningful information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested object with enums and constraints) and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential behavior (synchronous, returns 200, merge-patch) and does not need to repeat schema details. The absence of an output schema means the description's mention of the 200 response partially fills that gap. Enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both clusterName and rotations, including constraints and enum values for log types. The description itself adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the phrase 'given log types', which is already implied in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 action 'Change log rotation for the given log types' with a specific resource (log-config). It identifies the HTTP method and endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, but it is specific enough to be distinguished from the read counterpart ncloud_serverless_get_log_config.

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 says it is 'the only synchronous write' and mentions the merge-patch nature, providing some context about when to use it relative to other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to update log rotation vs. reading it) nor list exclusions. The usage is implied but not exhaustively guided.

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