ncloud_kms_create_key

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as permissions required, lifecycle side effects, key availability, or deletion behavior. Since this is a create operation, the agent has no information about what happens after creation beyond the schema's parameter hints.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Create a new KMS key') and then lists supported types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich schema covering all seven parameters, the description covers the core intent and key types. However, for a create tool with no output schema and no behavioral details, it is only minimally adequate; it could benefit from mentioning that key versions or rotation settings are handled via other tools, but it is not fatally incomplete.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for every field, including keyName constraints, keyType enum meanings, and optional parameters like isAutoRotation and rotationPeriod. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, but the schema already carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource 'KMS key', then lists supported key types (AES256, RSA2048, ECDSA). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling KMS operations like encrypt/decrypt/delete, which are present in the sibling list.

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 implies usage by listing supported key types, signaling which scenarios this tool fits (e.g., creating symmetric AES256 or asymmetric RSA/ECDSA keys). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like ncloud_kms_create_custom_key, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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