Write SSH config block

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description supports and enriches by noting the write is atomic and backed up — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also flags the confirm=true requirement, a meaningful behavioral gate. It omits what happens to pre-existing non-managed config lines, but the safety profile is well conveyed.

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?

One tight sentence plus a short constraint sentence. Front-loads the action and destination and wastes nothing.

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 destructive file-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirm gate and backup behavior but leaves the six-parameter surface largely undocumented and gives no guidance on when this should be run. Adequate but with clear gaps given the mutation risk and low schema coverage.

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 17%: only the profile parameter carries a schema description. The description mentions confirm=true, but host, user, alias, and controlPath are undocumented in both the description and the schema, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque. The description adds marginal but insufficient value over the schema.

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 (Write) and resource (managed config block) plus the target file (~/.ssh/config). It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like ris_generate_ssh_config (which generates rather than writes) and ris_show_config (which reads). Lacks explicit sibling differentiation but the write/managed-block scope is clear.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond the confirm=true note. It doesn't mention the alternative ris_generate_ssh_config for producing a block without writing, nor when the managed block should be regenerated vs. left alone. Only a bare invocation constraint is implied.

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