ncloud_resource_attach_group

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the operation is safe to retry and non-destructive. The description itself is minimal, but it does not contradict annotations. It adds little beyond the annotations regarding behavior such as partial failures or whether existing memberships are preserved.

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 one short sentence that conveys the core operation without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool and does not bury key 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?

Given the tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema annotations are mostly adequate for a basic call. However, the description does not clarify whether the resource group must already exist, how to discover valid group IDs (though ncloud_resource_list_groups exists as a sibling), or what response or error behavior to expect. These are minor gaps for such a straightforward 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 description coverage is 100%: groupId is described as 'Resource group ID' and nrnList as 'List of Ncloud Resource Names to add to the group (see ncloud_resource_list_resources)'. The description repeats essentially the same information as the schema, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema. The nrnList schema description already gives a useful cross-reference.

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 "Add one or more resources to a resource group" states a clear verb ('Add') and identifies both the target resource (resource group) and what is being added (resources). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like ncloud_resource_detach_group and ncloud_resource_attach_tag, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 the tool is used when needing to add resources to an existing resource group, and the schema parameter nrnList references ncloud_resource_list_resources as a way to find resource names. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of ncloud_resource_attach_tag or other resource-modification tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like the group needing to exist.

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