combell_ssh_keys_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the concrete consequence — 'that key can no longer log in' — which explains the real-world impact of the destructive operation beyond the generic annotation flags.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded ('Remove an SSH public key...'), and the consequential side effect is appended as a compact, clearly-labeled note. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter delete operation with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. The side effect is disclosed, parameters are simple strings, and the fingerprint provenance is documented in the schema. Minor gaps: no mention of behavior when the key doesn't exist or the hosting is invalid, and no return-value description since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 50%: fingerprint is well-described with a cross-reference to combell_ssh_keys_list, but domain_name has no schema description. The tool description partially compensates by clarifying the operation targets 'a Linux hosting', implying domain_name identifies that hosting, but it doesn't specify expected format or clarify the relationship further.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') + resource ('SSH public key') + qualifier ('by fingerprint' from 'a Linux hosting'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like combell_ssh_keys_add (creation) and combell_ssh_keys_list (read-only enumeration), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context: use this when a specific SSH public key should be removed from a Linux hosting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., combell_ssh_set_enabled for disabling SSH entirely), but the action is unambiguous enough that the appropriate invocation context is evident.

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