Update private key

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

Annotations already disclose the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the API identifies the key by its private_key content (a non-obvious requirement) and that name/description are optional fields, which clarifies the update semantics beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. It is efficient without unnecessary fluff.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it identifies the target, and which fields are optional. It could be slightly richer by mentioning potential side effects or prerequisites, but given the low complexity and supportive annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does so effectively: private_key is the required identifier, while name and description are optional updatable fields. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't specify constraints or default behaviors.

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 begins with 'Update an SSH private key,' which clearly states the action and resource. It further distinguishes this tool from siblings like createPrivateKey, deletePrivateKey, and getPrivateKey by specifying the unique identification method via private_key content.

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 implies usage when updating an existing private key, and it clarifies that the private_key content is required for identification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when/when-not guidance, such as preferring createPrivateKey for new keys or deletePrivateKey for removal.

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