add_service_ssh_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers key behavioral traits: plain write, no billing impact, not destructive, and per-server operation. However, it does not discuss idempotency or return behavior, which would be beneficial but is acceptable for this scope.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences each serve a distinct purpose: action+distinction, scope+traits, and parameter source. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's effect and prerequisites. It would benefit from mentioning what happens post-installation (e.g., return status), but it is sufficient for a simple write operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions service_id source. No extra detail on optional id or name parameters.

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 it installs an SSH public key directly onto a running service and distinguishes from the sibling tool add_service_ssh_key_to_library, making the specific verb and resource unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts with the related sibling tool, mentions the required scope (services:write), and notes that service_id comes from list_services, providing clear when-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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