ncloud_kms_request_key_deletion

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

The description begins with '⚠️ Destructive' and describes permanent deletion, directly contradicting the annotation destructiveHint: false, which indicates the tool is not destructive. This is a serious inconsistency. Per rules, a contradiction merits score 1 regardless of other behavioral details provided.

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 compact yet informative, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and key lifecycle details. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

While the description explains the lifecycle (REVOKE state, scheduled deletion, cancellability), it omits the return value or confirmation details (e.g., scheduled date, operation ID). Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's destructive nature, additional context about what the agent can expect as a response would improve completeness.

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% for the single required parameter keyTag, with the schema already providing a clear description ('Key tag - unique identifier derived from key name (required)'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool requests deletion of a KMS key, explains the transition to REVOKE state and eventual permanent deletion after a scheduled date, and notes that deletion can be cancelled before the destroy date. This provides specific verb+resource+lifecycle detail, distinguishing it clearly from related tools like ncloud_kms_cancel_key_deletion or ncloud_kms_delete_key.

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 mentions that deletion can be cancelled, implying a cancellation alternative exists, but does not explicitly name the sibling tool ncloud_kms_cancel_key_deletion or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. It offers moderate contextual clues about the deletion process but lacks direct usage boundaries or comparison with alternatives.

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