Изменение SSH-ключа

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds beyond that by disclosing partial-update behavior: only provided fields are updated, which is valuable behavioral context not present in 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core function and identification method; the second provides actionable guidance. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 four parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and usage. It could mention response format, but that is unnecessary given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema requirement.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds meaning by explicitly listing the updatable fields (name, body, is_default) and emphasizing the partial-update semantics, guiding the agent on which fields to include per request.

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 ('Изменяет' = 'changes') with a clear resource ('SSH-ключа' = 'SSH key') and specifies the identification method ('по ID' = 'by ID'). It clearly differentiates this update operation from sibling tools like create_ssh_key, delete_ssh_key, get_ssh_key, and list_ssh_keys.

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 instruction 'Передавай только те поля, которые нужно изменить' ('Pass only the fields that need to be changed') provides clear usage guidance for partial updates. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of updating an existing key by ID is unambiguous and sufficient for tool selection.

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