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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the SSH-key prerequisite and the meaning of 'watch: true' (inclusion in an immune-system agent's sweeps). However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and the description never says what is destroyed or overwritten when an existing server is 'updated' – stale credentials, prior alias, prior port? For a destructive mutation that is the single most important disclosure, and it is missing.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with the prerequisite and the watch behavior packed into compact parentheticals. No filler, though the nested asides make it slightly dense to parse in one read.

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?

Seven parameters, 14% schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructive mutation – this tool needs more than two sentences. Missing are what happens on update (upsert semantics vs. error), the destructive consequences flagged in annotations, whether duplicate aliases are allowed, and what a successful call returns.

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 only 14% (only agent_id is documented in the schema), so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It explains 'watch' and gestures at the SSH key requirement, but host, user, port, alias, and note carry no meaning beyond their names, and the absence of a key parameter despite the SSH framing is left unexplained.

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 ('adds or updates') and resource ('a server an agent may log into with its own SSH key'), which is concrete and distinguishable from remove_machine and list_machines by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a real precondition for use: the target server must already have a login for the agent's key, and it routes the agent to 'read_manual which=api' for the setup recipe. That is clear when-to-use guidance with an alternative named for the prerequisite step. It does not say when to prefer test_machine or remove_machine instead, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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