ncloud_secret_cancel_rotation

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the targeting constraint (only the active job), but says nothing about what happens to partially rotated secret values or whether the cancel is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scoping qualifier 'currently running' earns its place by narrowing what gets cancelled.

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 narrow cancel operation with complete schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is sufficient. Minor gaps remain around post-cancellation state, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (secretId and keyIsolation) are fully documented in the schema, including the enum meaning and host differences. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (cancel), resource (rotation job), and scope (currently running for a secret). It cleanly distinguishes from sibling rotate-family tools like execute_rotation, retry_rotation, and rollback_rotation, though it does not call any of them out by name.

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 phrase 'that is currently running' implies the precondition for use (a rotation in progress), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as rollback_rotation or retry_rotation, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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