update_host_ssh_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only implies a mutation ('Update') without stating what gets replaced, whether the old key is overwritten, required permissions, or effects on existing connections. It adds no detail beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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?

Three words are under-specified for a 4-parameter mutation tool with sensitive SSH key data. This is not concise; it omits necessary context rather than front-loading a complete, efficient statement.

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 sensitive mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no prerequisites, side effects, or parameter guidance an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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% for 4 parameters (id, authMode, password, privateKey), and the description does not mention any parameter, leaving their meaning, format, or constraints completely undocumented beyond names and types.

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 'Update host SSH key' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name update_host_ssh_key, making it tautological rather than adding clarifying scope or distinguishing it from siblings like generate_host_ssh_key or delete_host_ssh_key.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_host_ssh_key, sync_host_ssh_key, or update_ssh_config. The agent must infer its place in the host SSH key lifecycle on its own.

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