authorize_ssh_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Authorize' implies a state change, but there is no mention of whether the key must already exist, whether it appends to an authorized_keys file, if it is reversible, or any security implications. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, though it could have used the brevity to include more context.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description lacks operational context such as side effects, requirements (e.g., key must exist), and relationship to other SSH key tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description is the only source of context and is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the sole parameter ('Key name to authorize'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Authorize') with a clear resource ('SSH key') and purpose ('for login'), distinguishing it from siblings like deauthorize_ssh_key, import_ssh_key, and list_ssh_keys. It is unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_ssh_key or deauthorize_ssh_key. The phrase 'for login' implies a purpose but does not specify prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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