ncloud_kms_enable_key_version

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not explain what happens if the version is already enabled, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on key lifecycle (e.g., canceling deletion schedules). The description relies entirely on the annotations and the verb itself.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple state-change operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it does not mention key lifecycle context (e.g., enabling a disabled version, effect on rotation) or how this action differs from enabling the entire key. The tool is simple, but the description could offer more context.

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 already provides descriptive parameter definitions for keyTag ('unique identifier derived from key name') and version ('Key version number to enable'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Enable') and the specific resource ('a specific version of a KMS key'), making it distinct from sibling tools like ncloud_kms_disable_key_version or ncloud_kms_enable_key. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ncloud_kms_enable_key (enabling the whole key) or ncloud_kms_disable_key_version. It neither mentions prerequisites (e.g., the version must be disabled) nor indicates any exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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