host_generate_key

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

The description notes that the private key stays local, that the public key must be manually installed, and that the return value contains both the private-key path and the public-key line. This goes beyond the annotations, which only set readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint to false, and clarifies the tool's output and side-effect profile.

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 and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a short workflow note referencing host_add, and labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence carries operational information, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple key-generation tool with one object parameter, the description covers the generated output, the required follow-up steps, and the return value. It does not mention overwrite behavior or file permissions, but these are minor given the annotations and the focused scope of the tool.

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?

The description only restates the parameter names ('name, comment') without explaining their meaning or format. The schema's nested descriptions are the sole source of parameter semantics, and with schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of accessible parameter documentation.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Generate a new ed25519 SSH key pair in the server's key directory.' This is a specific action on a specific resource and none of the sibling tools (host_add, host_list, host_test, etc.) overlap with key generation.

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 gives concrete usage context: after generating, copy the public key to the remote authorized_keys file and then supply the private key path to host_add via 'key_path'. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool in the host-management workflow, though it does not explicitly list exclusionary conditions or alternatives.

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