ncloud_kms_reencrypt

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only AES256 or RSA2048 key types are supported and that re-encryption uses the latest key version. However, it does not disclose the output format, whether the original ciphertext is replaced or returned, or any side effects such as requiring certain permissions. This leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds relevant information (what it does, when to use, constraints), with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint (supported key types) but omits the return behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., new ciphertext) or how the 'context' parameter affects the operation, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with KMS. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (keyTag, context, ciphertext), including that ciphertext can be a string or array. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not go beyond it.

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 ('Re-encrypt') and resource ('ciphertext with the latest version of the specified master key'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from related KMS siblings like ncloud_kms_encrypt and ncloud_kms_decrypt by focusing on re-encryption after key rotation.

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 provides a use case: 'Used after key rotation to update encrypted data.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the stated purpose is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately among the many KMS operations.

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