Создание SSH-ключа

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by explaining the is_default flag's effect on server creation and stating that the key is created in the account. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what the response contains, so it only marginally extends beyond the 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the action and the required parameters. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words. The explanation of is_default is valuable and included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 create operation with three fully documented parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the key purpose and the meaning of the is_default flag. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created key object) or any prerequisites, which would improve completeness slightly. The overall context is sufficient for a straightforward creation tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description repeats the schema's parameter explanations without adding any new meaning or context beyond what is already structured. Since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate, but it also does not add value beyond baseline.

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 the verb 'Создаёт' (creates) and the resource 'SSH-ключ в аккаунте' (SSH key in the account), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling operations like update_ssh_key, delete_ssh_key, or add_ssh_keys_to_server by defining a new key creation.

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 when to use this tool (to create a new SSH key) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. It provides no guidance about when to use this versus updating or adding existing keys, which would be helpful. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and action verb.

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