Добавление SSH-ключей на сервер

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

The description adds context that the keys are existing and that multiple keys can be added in one call, which is useful beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate those. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or prerequisites like server state, but this is a simple tool and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes valuable lookup hints without any redundancy or filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what the tool does, how to get the required IDs, and that it operates on existing keys. It could optionally mention what happens if a key is already attached, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is largely sufficient.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters, including that ssh_key_ids is an array of IDs and both are required. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the 'array of IDs' concept and the 'existing' aspect, which is a minor semantic addition. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3.

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 that the tool adds one or more existing SSH keys to a server by their IDs. It names the specific resource (server, SSH keys) and the action, and the reference to list_ssh_keys and list_servers distinguishes how to obtain prerequisites, making it distinct from related tools like create_ssh_key or remove_ssh_key_from_server.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required IDs (via list_ssh_keys and list_servers), which is essential for correct usage. It implies the keys must already exist, but it does not explicitly exclude cases like when to use create_ssh_key instead, so it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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