ncloud_secret_disable_secret

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

Though annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds value the annotations cannot: the exact impact (applications lose read access) and the fact that the change is reversible. The confirm=true gate is also surfaced prominently, a required safeguard not captured by annotation hints.

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 sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded, followed by the behavioral consequence and the confirm requirement. No filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers impact, reversibility, and the confirmation gate, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete; only the lack of an explicit alternative-tool reference keeps it short of perfect.

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%, so secretId, confirm, and keyIsolation (including the enum meanings) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm requirement and adds nothing about keyIsolation, 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?

States a specific verb (disable) and resource (secret) and immediately describes the effect on dependent applications. It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling ncloud_secret_enable_secret without opening either schema.

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 reversibility note ('until it is enabled again') implicitly points to the enable counterpart and clarifies the consequence of calling it, but the description never states an explicit condition or names the alternative tool. Clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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