add_account_ssh_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is public and specifies allowed formats, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., duplicate name handling, validation failures, or response behavior). Some additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise, using two sentences plus a distinguishing note. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could mention what is returned (e.g., key ID or success confirmation). It covers parameter constraints and purpose adequately but lacks details on error conditions or post-invocation state changes.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: name is a display label with uniqueness per account, publicKey specifies OpenSSH types and maximum length. It reinforces the public nature, adding value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool adds an account-wide SSH public key for use when deploying new cloud VMs. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool add_service_ssh_key, providing a specific verb and resource with scope.

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 specifies the required scope (account:write) and notes it's a plain write, not gated. It also warns not to paste private keys and distinguishes from per-service key. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the sibling distinction.

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