ncloud_advisor_include_instances

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permissions, or whether it adds to or replaces existing inclusions. For a modification tool, the behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the action and provides the key purpose immediately. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks context about the broader advisor workflow, persistence, or what happens after inclusion. The agent would benefit from knowing how this tool interacts with the check result detail view and the exclude operation.

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. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely refers to 'specified instances'. It does not elaborate on what categoryCode, itemCode, or instanceKeys represent in context.

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 tool's action: setting instances to include in the check result detail view. It explicitly mentions that it reverses exclusion, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ncloud_advisor_exclude_instances'. The verb 'Set' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 stating it 'reverses exclusion', which tells the agent when to use this tool (e.g., after an exclusion has been applied). However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use it or mention alternative approaches beyond the implied contrast with the exclude tool.

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