ncloud_update_fabric_cluster

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the Server API has no unified update, so the call fans out to changeFabricClusterName and changeFabricClusterDescription, name first. This two-call ordering is important operational context an agent cannot get from annotations, though the description stops short of spelling out partial-failure consequences if the second call fails.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the implementation mechanics and the input precondition. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each sentence carries a distinct piece of 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the underlying two-call mechanism, call ordering, and the minimum input requirement, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. It could go further on permissions or cluster-state prerequisites, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-parameter constraint absent from the schema: at least one of fabricClusterName or fabricClusterDescription must be supplied even though only fabricClusterNo is marked required. That is real added semantic value beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 and resource ('Update a fabric cluster's name and/or description') and immediately bounds the scope to two mutable fields, which separates it from siblings like ncloud_change_fabric_cluster_servers or ncloud_delete_fabric_cluster. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 closing clause 'Provide at least one of the two' gives a clear precondition for invocation, and the name/description scope implies when this tool applies versus create/delete/change-servers siblings. No explicit when-not guidance or alternative naming is offered, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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