ncloud_kms_update_token_generator

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds behavioral context by stating it 'Generates a new secret for token creation,' which clarifies the core effect. However, it does not discuss potential side effects (e.g., invalidation of existing tokens) or other operational details, so it only partially expands on the annotations.

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 two short sentences (19 words) with the action verb first and the effect immediately after. Absolutely no filler; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations for safety. The description explains the operation and its outcome, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but that is already addressed in purpose clarity, and the simplicity of the tool limits the need for further 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: keyTag is described as 'Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name.' The tool description redundantly mentions 'KMS key,' but the schema already conveys the meaning. No additional syntax or format details are provided, so the description adds minimal value 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 a specific verb ('Update (rotate)') and resource ('token generator for a KMS key'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create/get/delete token generator. It also explains the effect: 'Generates a new secret for token creation.' This is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage context is implied through 'Update (rotate)' – it is for rotating an existing token generator, not creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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