ncloud_kms_enable_key

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the state transition (disabled → enabled) and the consequence of usability, which is useful context. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the condition and result. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with comprehensive schema coverage and solid annotations, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and outcome. It does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., key must exist and be disabled), but this is implied and the tool is simple enough that the description is adequate.

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 fully describes the only parameter, keyTag, as a 'unique identifier derived from key name'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Enable a disabled KMS key') with a clear result ('make it usable again'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_kms_disable_key (opposite action) and ncloud_kms_enable_key_version (targets key version, not the 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 phrase 'disabled KMS key' explicitly indicates the condition under which to use the tool. However, no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned (e.g., cannot enable a key pending deletion), but the context is clear for a single-state transition.

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