kp_wrap_key

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Wrap (encrypt)' indicating mutation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or success/failure indicators. Lacks depth for a mutation 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?

Single sentence of 10 words, no fluff. Efficient but could be structured with parameter hints. However, conciseness is good.

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?

No output schema and no return value description. Agent cannot infer what the tool returns (e.g., wrapped key or status). Missing behavioral details for a complete understanding.

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 only 25% (plaintext described as 'Base64-encoded DEK'). The overall description does not explain instance_id, key_id, or region beyond their names. Does not add meaningful context to compensate for low coverage.

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 'Wrap' and the resource 'data encryption key using a root key'. It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like kp_create_key (create a key) and kp_unwrap_key (unwrap), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kp_create_key or kp_unwrap_key. The description implies use for encrypting a DEK but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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