ncloud_sourcedeploy_reject_canary

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full weight. It only says 'reject', but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required state (e.g., canary must be in manual analysis), or any other behavioral traits.

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?

Description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. Could be slightly longer to include key details without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

As part of a canary deployment workflow, the description lacks context: when to call, what the IDs refer to, and how it relates to sibling tools like approve_canary or get_canary_analysis_steps. No output schema to compensate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for projectId, stageId, scenarioId. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description states the tool rejects a canary version deployment, which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from other reject tools like ncloud_sourcedeploy_reject_deploy, and 'manually analyzed' could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as ncloud_sourcedeploy_approve_canary or ncloud_sourcedeploy_reject_deploy. The agent must infer workflow context.

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