ssh_host_add

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key trait: saved credentials can be reused later without re-entry. However, it does not mention what happens on duplicate aliases, whether configuration is overwritten, authentication precedence, or security/storage implications, which matters 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

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 9 parameters, a nested jumpHost object, and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a clear workflow but leaves meaningful gaps: it does not clarify add vs update semantics, duplicate-alias behavior, auth method selection, or return/error behavior. Schema richness compensates partially, but not fully.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the schema already documents host, port, tags, alias, jumpHost, password, username, privateKey, and description. The description adds some functional context for alias by stating it is used as the ssh_connect handle, but does not add detail about other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Save') and resource ('SSH host configuration'), and states the downstream workflow: connecting with just the alias via ssh_connect. This clearly differentiates it from connection/execution tools in the sibling list.

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?

It explains when to use this tool: to persist a host configuration for quick access, then use ssh_connect with the alias. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ssh_host_update or state when not to use it, so there is room for more explicit routing.

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