ncloud_set_sub_account_access_key_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral meaning beyond them: a deactivated key 'cannot call the API' and the operation is reversible ('can be re-activated later'). This enriches the annotation profile rather than merely restating it.

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 sentences with zero redundant content. The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two carries the essential behavioral caveat about non-deletion. Every word earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter state toggle with annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description covers the necessary semantics. The accessKey parameter schema reference to ncloud_list_sub_account_access_keys helps an agent source a valid value. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for this operation type, though return behavior is not described.

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 all three parameters (active, accessKey, subAccountId) are already documented in the schema, including the true/false activation semantics of 'active'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, 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 ('Activate or deactivate') with a precise resource ('a sub account's API access key'). It differentiates from siblings like ncloud_delete_sub_account_access_key by clarifying the key 'is not deleted' and can be re-activated. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives clear operational context: a deactivated key 'cannot call the API' but remains available for later re-activation. This implies the tool is for temporary disabling rather than permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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