Register a Scaleway IAM SSH Key

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by detailing client-side validation that rejects private keys, the consequence of granting broad SSH access, and the caution against speculative calls. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds significant behavioral context.

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 long, with the first sentence conveying the core action and the most critical constraint (no private keys), and the second providing the broader impact and a warning. Every word is purposeful; no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers what the tool does, what input constraints it enforces, and the high-level behavioral impact. It does not specify the return value (no output schema required), but provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's seriousness and scope. The warning against speculative use fills a gap that annotations do not address.

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 all three parameters are already explained in the input schema. The description only reiterates that public_key must be a public key, which is already stated in the schema. No additional parameter-level meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Register' and the resource 'PUBLIC SSH key', explicitly distinguishing it from private key operations and from sibling tools like list/update/delete SSH keys. It also specifies the scope of access granted, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 strong contextual guidance by warning 'don't call speculatively' and explaining that the action grants SSH access to any instance/service trusting keys from this Project. It does not explicitly list alternatives (e.g., listing existing keys before creating), but the warning and context are clear enough to inform appropriate use.

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