apply_service_ssh_key_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation replaces existing keys, is a 'plain write', and has 'no billing impact, not destructive'. This goes beyond the basic action description and adds important behavioral context.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core action, and subsequent sentences add essential usage details and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the tool's purpose, required context (scope, source of IDs), behavior (replacement, non-destructive), and parameter options. For a straightforward write operation with two parameters, this is fully sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description for keyIds and service_id closely mirrors the schema descriptions, adding little additional meaning beyond directing to list_service_ssh_key_library and list_services. It does not introduce new semantic value.

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 action: 'Apply a SET of library SSH keys to a legacy VPS, replacing whichever keys are currently authorized on the server.' It specifies the verb (apply), the resource (library SSH keys), and the effect (replacement), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_service_ssh_key_to_library or list_service_ssh_key_library.

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 provides explicit context: requires scope 'services:write', uses service_id from list_services, and explains that omitting keyIds applies an empty set. It also clarifies the operation is a 'plain write' with no billing impact. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient.

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