ncloud_set_lb_description

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe repetition and no destructive side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as permission requirements, description length limits, or error behavior, which would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It wastes no words, though a brief note on idempotency or usage context could further enhance it without harming conciseness.

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 single-field update operation, the description is adequate. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the operation is idempotent (though annotated) or by providing a usage example. The lack of output schema and the minimal description make it just sufficient.

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%, so the schema sufficiently describes each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema; thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Set or update' and the resource 'description of a load balancer instance', making the tool's function unambiguous. It differentiates well from siblings like ncloud_set_lb_subnet or ncloud_change_lb_config, which handle other aspects of load balancer configuration.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_change_lb_config or ncloud_set_lb_subnet. It lacks prerequisites, constraints on the description value, or any context about the load balancer's state required for the update.

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