ncloud_kms_create_custom_key

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It adds that only AES256/RSA2048 are supported and frames the operation as generating a wrapped key. However, it omits significant behavioral traits such as the deterministic effect of the 'context' parameter (convergent encryption) and the security sensitivity of requestPlainKey, which returns a plaintext key.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and object, the second gives the purpose, and the third lists a key constraint. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a wrapped key, with plaintext optionally when requestPlainKey is true). It does not describe the return structure or mention prerequisites like the master key existing. These gaps matter for a security-focused API, though the core function is adequately conveyed.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Only AES256 or RSA2048 key types supported' adds a useful constraint, but it is ambiguous relative to the bits parameter which lists 128/256/512, and there is no explicit mapping between bits and key type. Thus, added value beyond the schema is limited.

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: 'Generate a random raw key (data encryption key) wrapped by the specified master key.' It also specifies the use case ('Used for envelope encryption') and distinguishes from other KMS operations like create_key, which creates a master key, and encrypt/decrypt, which operate on existing data.

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 explicitly identifies the intended scenario: 'Used for envelope encryption,' giving an agent clear context for when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but within the KMS family, the envelope encryption phrasing sufficiently directs usage.

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