Attach SSH Key to VPS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects (e.g., adding the key to the VM's authorized_keys), prerequisites (e.g., the key must already exist), or error conditions. The verb 'attach' implies mutation but lacks operational detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the action.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify the operational effect (e.g., the key becomes usable for SSH), prerequisites (e.g., the key must exist), or how this compares to vps_keys_create. For a mutation tool with only two parameters, more context is needed to avoid misuse.

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 both parameters (vm_id and public_key_id) are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Attach') and the resources involved ('SSH public key', 'virtual machine'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like vps_keys_create (create a key) and vps_keys_list (list keys). It is not a tautology and provides clear intent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions. It merely states what it does without context on how it fits among related key management tools.

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