key_protect_wrap_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation ('wrap (encrypt) data') and gives the envelope encryption context, but fails to mention that this operation does not modify the root key (i.e., it's a safe read-like operation), that it returns ciphertext, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a cryptographic tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, and it earns its place by adding the envelope encryption context beyond the tool name.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides some context (envelope encryption) but does not explain what the function returns (wrapped ciphertext), the role of AAD, or any behavioral expectations. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of output/behavioral detail leaves gaps especially for a crypto operation. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, with each parameter (key_id, plaintext, aad) having a description. The tool description adds the high-level concept of envelope encryption but no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 specific verb 'Wrap (encrypt)' and the resource 'data using a root key in IBM Key Protect', and adds the purpose 'for envelope encryption'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like key_protect_unwrap_key and key_protect_list_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?

The phrase 'for envelope encryption' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using unwrap_key for decryption) or when not to use this tool. The sibling list implies the encryption/decryption pairing, but the description itself lacks exclusionary guidance.

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