ncloud_kms_disable_key_version

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that disabled versions cannot decrypt data. Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description does not contradict these. However, it does not fully disclose reversibility or other side effects (e.g., whether the version can be re-enabled).

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, the second explains the consequence. No extraneous information or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with two parameters and straightforward behavior, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and consequence. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap. However, it could mention that this operation is reversible (since enable exists as sibling) and whether the key version remains visible.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (keyTag and version). The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('disable a specific version of a KMS key') and the consequence ('disabled versions cannot decrypt data encrypted with that version'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_kms_enable_key_version (opposite action) and ncloud_kms_disable_key (disables entire key, not a specific version).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies usage for disabling a key version, it does not provide context such as prerequisites, when not to use, or mention of related operations like deletion (ncloud_kms_request_key_deletion).

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