ncloud_kms_enable_ip_acl

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

The annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already communicate safety, and the description aligns with them by describing an enable action. The description adds the behavioral context that the IP ACL controls which IP addresses can request tokens, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing ACL rules are preserved or whether it affects active requests. Given the annotations cover safety, this adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 states the action ('Enable IP ACL') and its purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 is simple: one required parameter fully described in the schema, annotations provide the safety profile, and no output schema is needed for an enable action. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does and why it would be used. However, it does not describe return values or any prerequisites beyond keyTag, but given the low complexity, this is nearly 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% because the single parameter keyTag is fully described in the input schema ('Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name'). The tool description does not mention the parameter, but since the schema already carries the meaning, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Enable' and identifies the resource 'IP ACL' with a clear purpose: 'to control which IP addresses can request tokens for a KMS key.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ncloud_kms_disable_ip_acl, which performs the opposite action. The verb+resource combination makes the purpose immediately clear.

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 the tool's usage: enable IP ACL when you need to restrict token requests to certain IP addresses. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_kms_add_acl_rule or ncloud_kms_disable_ip_acl, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It offers clear context but no direct alternative guidance.

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