Create SSH key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the workflow context (this only registers the key on the account; a separate deploy step is required), but says nothing about permissions, duplicate-name/idempotency behavior, or key-format validation.

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 sentences: purpose first, workflow second. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the ordering constraint (read local key -> upload here -> deploy) is presented in execution order.

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 two-parameter creation tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite and follow-up step adequately. The remaining gaps are minor: no mention of the response shape (no output schema exists) or failure modes such as duplicate key names.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by telling the agent where public_key content comes from (~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub or ~/.ssh/id_ed25519.pub) rather than just 'SSH public key content'. It does not elaborate on the name/label constraint.

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 and resource ('Add a new SSH key') plus scope ('to the account'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling deploy_ssh_key (which acts on a VPS) and from list_ssh_keys/get_ssh_key/delete_ssh_key. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use scenario ('To deploy software on a VPS') and names the alternative/next tool (deploy_ssh_key), plus the prerequisite of reading the local public key. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it or how it relates to list_ssh_keys (e.g. checking for an existing key first).

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