ncloud_kms_request_key_deletion

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

The description states 'Destructive' and explains the key enters REVOKE state with permanent deletion after the scheduled date. However, the annotation destructiveHint is false, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile.

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 concise, front-loaded with the destructive warning, and uses two clear sentences to explain the lifecycle and cancellability. Every sentence adds value with no 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: state transition, scheduled permanent deletion, and that it can be cancelled. It does not mention return values, but none are specified, and the lifecycle explanation is sufficient for an agent to understand the action's implications. Minor gap: no explicit prerequisite that the key must exist, but that is implied by requesting deletion of a specific key.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter keyTag, with a description of 'Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name'. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 action ('Request deletion of a KMS key') on a specific resource, and it distinguishes this tool from immediate-delete and cancel-deletion siblings by describing the scheduled deletion flow. The verb 'request' and the mention of REVOKE state make the purpose 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 provides context for when to use this tool: to initiate a cancellable, scheduled deletion of a KMS key. It notes that the action can be cancelled before the destroy date, implying an alternative cancel operation, but it does not explicitly name or compare alternatives like 'ncloud_kms_cancel_key_deletion' or 'ncloud_kms_delete_key' for immediate deletion. No explicit exclusion is given.

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