arvan_create_ssh_key

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, only explaining the key's purpose. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, or error conditions like duplicate keys.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation). It also fails to address idempotency (annotation says false) or error handling. The description is incomplete for a creation tool with multiple parameters and no return value documentation.

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 0% with no descriptions on parameters. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as the required format for 'public_key' or the role of 'region'. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 action ('Register') and the resource ('SSH public key') and explains its purpose (injection into servers at create). It distinguishes from sibling tools like arvan_delete_ssh_key or arvan_list_ssh_keys, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to generate a keypair first, or that this key should be used with arvan_create_server. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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