stop_key_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the key is deactivated rather than deleted and that the disabling is temporary, which is meaningful context beyond the tool name. It does not detail permissions, effects on in-flight operations, or re-enabling behavior, but the core state change is clearly communicated.

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 short, front-loaded with the most important usage context, and includes only necessary information. The Args section is compact and useful, with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema state-change tool, this is complete. It explains when to use it, what action it performs, how it differs from deletion, and what the parameter should look like. Nothing needed for correct selection and invocation 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's 'Key ARN or alias' is essential. It tells the agent what kind of identifier to pass, which is not inferable from the schema's plain 'string' type. This fully covers the single required parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: call this to temporarily disable or deactivate a key. It also explicitly distinguishes the action from deletion with 'without deleting it,' which separates it from sibling delete_key.

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 first sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: temporarily disabling a key, especially during key rotation before the old key is confirmed unused. It implies a reversible action, but it does not explicitly name the alternative start_key_usage for re-enabling, which would make the guidance fully complete.

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