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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds useful context beyond them: it requires clusters.write and explains the observable effect (new nodes and the bastion accept the key again). It does not address idempotency or repeat-call behavior, which the idempotentHint=false annotation leaves somewhat open.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and then the reason to use it; every clause earns its place. The inline CLI-twin reference is mildly parenthetical but still useful for orientation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the repair scenario, and the required permission. It omits any note on what a caller observes on success or whether the operation is safe to retry, which is the main remaining 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 the schema already documents cluster_id and cluster_name including their 'optional when a cluster is selected' semantics. The description only refers to 'the cluster' generically and adds nothing on identifier selection, 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?

States a specific verb (re-register) and resource (the cluster's SSH key) scoped to the cloud provider, which is far more precise than the bare tool name. It also maps itself to the CLI twin `ankra cluster ssh-keys resync`, letting an agent distinguish it from adjacent SSH tools like ssh_repair_node or ssh_diagnose_node.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to repair a key the provider lost or rotated so new nodes and the bastion accept it again. That is clear triggering context, though it names no exclusions or sibling alternatives (e.g. when ssh_repair_node is the better choice instead).

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