setup_github_deploy_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important behavioral traits: the key is written into cPanel and an external write occurs on GitHub as a read-only deploy key. It does not cover permissions required to register the key beyond what the schema says, whether an existing key would be overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on partial failure between the two systems.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, zero redundant wording, and the key distinguishing detail (read-only Deploy Key) placed where an agent will read it.

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 cross-system mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the outcome: it does not say what is returned (key fingerprint, key path, deploy key ID) or how failures in the GitHub registration step are surfaced. The schema covers inputs fully, so the remaining gap is mainly about results and side effects.

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 four parameters (owner, repo, key_title, github_token) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as token scope requirements or naming conventions for key_title. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific composite action: generating an SSH key in cPanel and registering it as a read-only Deploy Key on GitHub. This distinguishes it from the plain generate_ssh_key sibling by adding the GitHub registration half. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives like generate_ssh_key or connect_github_repo.

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 phrase 'for private repo access' implies the scenario (enabling deployment from a private GitHub repository), so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative flows (generate_ssh_key then manual registration, or configure_github_token/connect_github_repo for other integration paths), and no prerequisites such as a valid token or existing repo.

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