Delete SSH Key

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description complements this by explaining the consequence of deletion on existing servers. This is valuable behavioral context that goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the main action first and a clarifying note second. No 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?

For a simple delete operation with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations providing safety hints, the description covers the essential behavior and the only significant edge case (existing servers remain unaffected).

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('The SSH key ID to delete'), and the tool description does not add extra detail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'SSH key', and clarifies scope as 'from the project'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hetzner_create_ssh_key and hetzner_delete_server.

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 states the core action and adds an important usage caveat about not affecting existing servers, which helps the agent know when it's safe to delete. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use it, though sibling names make the scope clear.

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