ncloud_secret_job_complete

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the state transition (PENDING to ACTIVE) and the intended calling context, which is meaningful, but it does not address idempotency, error/failure behavior, or what completing an already-completed job does.

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 dense sentences that front-load the primary action and state change before the caller-context caveat. The parenthetical naming is a little heavy but nothing is wasted.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation control operation with three well-documented params, the description supplies purpose, caller context, and effect. It is nearly complete; only return/error semantics are unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 jobToken, secretId, and keyIsolation are already fully documented. The description reinforces that the token comes from the rotation function's environment but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Report a rotation job as completed') and adds the concrete state transition (PENDING becomes ACTIVE), so the effect is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from normal administration but does not explicitly position against adjacent job siblings like job_start or job_fail.

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?

Clearly scopes the caller: the rotation trigger's function using the injected job token, and explicitly says it is 'not during normal administration.' This is a strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use signal, though no named alternative tool is offered for the admin-path case.

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