update_ssh_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates an SSH key, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., if only name is provided, are labels preserved?). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an SSH key') and specifies updatable fields. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), parameter details, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters ('name, labels') but doesn't explain their semantics: 'id' is required but not mentioned, 'name' purpose is unclear (e.g., display name vs identifier), and 'labels' structure/usage is undefined. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('SSH key'), and specifies what can be updated ('name, labels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_ssh_key' and 'delete_ssh_key' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_server' or 'update_volume' in terms of resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing SSH key ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'create_ssh_key' for initial setup or 'list_ssh_keys' for viewing existing keys. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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