create_ssh_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the host schema is instance-specific and varies by authType, advising to inspect existing hosts. However, it does not explain return values, error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens on duplicate creation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundant detail or vague filler.

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?

The tool is complex due to a nested schema and variable field shapes, and the description provides a practical strategy to deal with this by directing inspection of existing hosts. It lacks return-value or failure-mode info, but the guidance is sufficient for basic use.

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 schema only says 'Host configuration object', but the description enriches this by listing common fields (name, ip, port, username, authType) and explicitly noting that the shape varies by authType. This is critical information for correctly constructing the host parameter.

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 'Create a new SSH host configuration in Termix', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_ssh_host, delete_ssh_host, and list_ssh_hosts by specifying 'new' configuration.

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 clear context by instructing to inspect existing hosts via get_ssh_host/list_ssh_hosts for a concrete schema example before creating. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance effectively directs the agent to leverage related tools.

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