Add host

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by disclosing exactly what happens: writes to a separate managed file, wires it in via Include, leaves the manual config untouched, replaces an existing managed block for the same alias, and defers to a manually described alias. This directly answers what gets destroyed and what is preserved.

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?

Two compact paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action before the mechanism details. Dense but each sentence carries distinct value; nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to carry the unusual write semantics, which it does well. It stops short of only usage/routing context against siblings.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema itself (alias, hostname, port, user, extra, proxy_jump, identity_file). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Add a host to ~/.ssh/config') and clarifies the mechanism (managed file, Include wiring). It is clearly distinct from siblings like remove_host and get_host by verb alone, but it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing against siblings such as check_hosts, trust_host, or get_host. The conflict/resolution rules are behavior, not usage guidance.

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