ncloud_update_product_schema

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the critical behavioral question for a schema update — whether submitted fields replace the entire schema or merge with existing definitions, and what happens to omitted fields — is left unstated, and the description adds no behavioral context at all.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is structurally clean, though arguably over-terse for a tool with a nested field-definition payload.

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 that rewrites a custom product schema, the description omits the replace-vs-merge semantics and any caution about the nested field array. No output schema exists, so nothing compensates; the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested fields array documents each sub-property (dataType, dimension, metric, aggregations, idDimension) with enums and constraints, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when coverage is full.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (user-defined custom schema in Cloud Insight), which is enough to separate it from create_custom_schema, get_product_schema, and delete_product_schema siblings. It does not, however, name any sibling or clarify the relationship to the schema-level options like ncloud_get_schema_keys.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the schema must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as create_custom_schema or delete_product_schema. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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