Create private key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and gives a parameter format hint, but does not explain side effects, storage behavior, validation, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new SSH private key') and immediately follows with the essential parameter requirement. No filler or redundancy exists.

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?

The tool is simple (3 flat parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the most critical required parameter. However, it omits any mention of return values, validation behavior, or how this key relates to deployments/servers. These gaps make it minimally adequate but not complete for an agent to use without further assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'private_key' should contain the full PEM-encoded key, which is valuable. However, 'name' and 'description' parameters are not explained at all, and there is no syntax or additional context for them. The compensation is partial at best.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new SSH private key'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like listPrivateKeys and other create* tools. The additional detail about the PEM-encoded key clarifies exactly what the tool operates on.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool to create/register a private key resource. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. It doesn't mention if this is for storing an existing key vs generating a new one, which could be ambiguous.

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