manage_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that create/update are credential writes, requires confirmation, and mentions the collection-level PATCH nuance for update (uuid in body). This adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context, though it doesn't explain what 'fenced' means or potential side effects of delete.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a concise action list, then critical operational details. No filler or redundant content.

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 the tool complexity (9 params, 5 actions) and no output schema, the description covers essential warnings and nuances but could elaborate on return values or per-action behavior. However, the rich schema descriptions compensate, making the description adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking confirm to credential writes and explaining that update uses a collection-level PATCH with uuid in the body. This goes beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 tool manages Coolify SSH private keys and enumerates the supported actions (list, get, create, update, delete). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_server or manage_storage.

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 context on how to perform actions, notably that create/update are fenced credential writes requiring --allow-destructive and confirm:true. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's scope is clear relative to siblings.

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