Create SSH Key

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat those. It adds useful context about usage (keys are used when creating servers) and provides input format hints, but it does not disclose behavior such as duplicate key handling, idempotency, or response characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence. The Args list is compact and directly useful, with no filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose or parameters.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description explains the outcome (key added, usable for servers) and core parameters. However, it omits the optional 'response_format' parameter that appears in the schema, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions exist for all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples for 'name' (e.g., 'my-laptop') and specifying that 'public_key' must start with formats like 'ssh-rsa' or 'ssh-ed25519'. It also clarifies that 'labels' is optional, which reinforces the schema.

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 ('Add') and resource ('SSH public key to the project'), clearly distinguishing this create operation from sibling tools like hetzner_list_ssh_keys, hetzner_get_ssh_key, and hetzner_delete_ssh_key. It also explains the purpose (enabling SSH access on servers), removing ambiguity.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when adding an SSH key to enable SSH access on future servers. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with list, get, or delete operations.

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