Удаление SSH-ключа

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

The description states 'Действие необратимо' (the action is irreversible), but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: a delete operation with irreversible effect is inherently destructive. The description's disclosure conflicts with the structured safety hint.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a necessary safety warning. Two sentences carry all essential information without fluff, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the key contextual points: irreversibility and a pre-check action. It lacks details about consequences if the key is in use or return values, but given the simplicity and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete. However, the contradiction with annotations prevents a perfect score.

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 single parameter ssh_key_id is fully described in the schema as 'REQUIRED FIELD - ID SSH-ключа для удаления', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('deletes') and resource ('SSH key from account by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_ssh_key_from_server and update_ssh_key. The Russian text 'Удаляет SSH-ключ из аккаунта по ID' unambiguously states the action and scope.

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 provides explicit pre-usage guidance: check list_ssh_keys to ensure the key is not used on critical servers (field used_by) before deletion. This gives clear operational context, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like remove_ssh_key_from_server, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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