Migrate a KMS key to the KR or JPN region so it becomes usable from the target region's KMS endpoint.
Migrate a KMS key to another region (KR or JPN). The key becomes usable from the target region's KMS endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyTag | Yes | Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name | |
| targetRegion | Yes | Target region: KR (Korea) or JPN (Japan) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the post-condition ('becomes usable from the target region's KMS endpoint'), but says nothing about whether the key remains usable in the source region, whether migration is reversible, whether it is synchronous, or what permissions are needed.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the outcome. 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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is adequate on purpose and effect. However, with no annotations it should say more about the key's state in the source region and reversibility to fully equip an agent to call it safely.
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%, with both keyTag and the targetRegion enum (KR/JPN) documented in the schema. The description restates the region options but adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Migrate') plus resource ('KMS key') and scope ('to another region'), which clearly separates it from sibling operations like ncloud_kms_rotate_key or ncloud_kms_reencrypt. It stops short of explicitly naming any alternative to route against, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The reader must infer from the purpose alone that this is the tool for regional relocation; prerequisites (key state, permissions, downtime) and any contrasting sibling are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.