ncloud_kms_disable_key_version

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral consequence that disabled versions cannot decrypt data encrypted with that version, which is valuable context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention whether encryption operations are also affected or whether re-enabling is possible.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and follow with the key consequence. Every word earns its place 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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description covers the purpose and the material effect on decryption. It doesn't address return behavior or edge cases, but no output schema exists and the annotation covers idempotency. Slight gap about whole-key vs version disabling is more relevant to usage guidelines.

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 covers both parameters 100% (keyTag as unique identifier, version as version number). The description adds no additional detail about parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, so 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?

Clearly states verb+resource+scope: 'Disable a specific version of a KMS key'. The consequence sentence adds useful context that distinguishes it from disabling the entire key or enabling versions, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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 implies the use case: targeting a specific version of a KMS key. It does not explicitly state alternatives like `ncloud_kms_disable_key` for whole-key disablement, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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