Post keys

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write with open-world access, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that the payload is an RSA keypair containing an encrypted private key and public key, but it does not explain permissions, overwrite/replacement behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the core operation and payload before any optional detail.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It identifies the operation but leaves the actual request shape and behavioral requirements unspecified.

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 0%, and the three parameters are opaque generic names: form, params, and json_body. The description mentions keypair content but does not map encrypted private key or public key to any parameter, so an agent still cannot tell how to structure the call.

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: upload/set the user RSA keypair, with payload contents described as encrypted private key plus public key. It distinguishes the user keypair from organization-key siblings only implicitly, without naming an alternative, so it falls short of a 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?

It does not say when to use this tool versus related tools such as organization key uploads, public-key retrieval, or bulk public keys. The only guidance is the implied context of setting a user keypair, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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