Set up dedicated SSH key

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully scopes that destructiveness: replacement only happens with overwrite=true, and the private key is never returned. It does not cover permissions needed or where the key lands on disk, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 create-if-absent behavior, then the returned output, then the overwrite escape hatch. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return surface (public key + install command) and explicitly states the private key is never returned. It also covers the mutation consequence of overwrite. Only the 'comment' parameter is unaddressed.

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 33% (just 'profile'), so the description must compensate. It does explain overwrite=true (replace an existing key) well, but the 'comment' parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the coverage gap only partly filled.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create the dedicated ed25519 key'), plus concrete side effects (chmod 600, show public key + install command). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as ris_show_public_key and ris_generate_ssh_config, which do not create keys.

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?

It conveys implicit usage conditions: the key is only created 'if absent', and 'Pass overwrite=true to replace an existing key'. However, it never names an alternative tool for the cases it does not cover (e.g. viewing vs. regenerating vs. writing ssh config), so routing between the many ssh-related siblings is left to inference.

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