ssh_save_credentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavior: when a password is provided, the server is contacted to bootstrap a key and only the key is saved. This adds important context beyond the schema about the side effect and stored credential format.

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 sentences, perfectly sized. First sentence states the core purpose. Second sentence adds a crucial behavioral detail. No filler words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the key behavioral nuance. However, it could mention that the saved credential can later be used with ssh_connect_saved, enhancing integration awareness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level behavioral note but does not add semantic detail for individual parameters beyond what the schema's descriptions already provide.

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 (save SSH credentials locally), the result (under a reusable name), and the key behavioral nuance (if password provided, bootstrap a key and save only the key credential). This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_connect_saved or ssh_setup_key_auth.

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 implies usage: when you want to store credentials for later reuse. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you only need a one-time connection, use ssh_connect) or mention alternatives like ssh_setup_key_auth for key-only setup.

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