ncloud_secret_enable_auto_rotation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully discloses the conditional requirement on triggerId, which is real behavioral context, but it does not describe resulting state changes or side effects on an existing rotation configuration.

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 short sentences, action first and the conditional requiredness second. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most important invocation rule is front-loaded after the purpose.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying safety and idempotency, the description only needs to add the behavioral nuance it does (triggerId conditionality). It is nearly complete; minor omissions are that it doesn't mention keyIsolation/regional endpoint caveats or confirm what happens when rotation is already enabled.

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 3 baseline applies for the documented parameters. The description goes beyond baseline by explaining the condition under which triggerId becomes required — a semantic rule the schema text ('Rotation trigger ID') does not convey — earning above-baseline credit.

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 (enable) and resource (automatic rotation of a secret), which clearly separates it from sibling operations like 'disable_auto_rotation' or 'update_rotation_period'. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use when the agent instead wants to change only the trigger, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 gives one conditional usage hint — that triggerId is needed when no trigger exists or when changing it — which implies how to invoke the tool. However, it never addresses when to prefer this over 'ncloud_secret_update_rotation_trigger', 'update_rotation_period', or 'disable_auto_rotation', so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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