ncloud_wms_set_status

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds the mechanism (PUT .../settings) and the boolean-to-action mapping, which is useful context. It omits side effects on existing monitoring data or permission requirements, keeping it just short of full disclosure.

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 the core action first and the parameter mapping parenthetically appended; no wasted text. Slightly dense but efficient.

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 simple two-parameter toggle with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could note prerequisites or the affected resource scope, but nothing critical 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the same true=start/false=pause mapping the description repeats. The description adds the endpoint context but no new parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 pair (start/pause) and resource (WMS monitoring scenario), making the tool's job unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling read-only tools (ncloud_wms_list_monitors, ncloud_wms_get_monitor, etc.).

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 implies usage by spelling out start vs pause, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names the sibling tools an agent might confuse this with (e.g., list/get monitor). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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