generate_sandbox_ssh_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a precondition (the sandbox must not already have a key), but omits auth requirements, whether it returns the new key, and what happens if a key already exists — meaningful gaps for a mutation endpoint.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core action and precondition. The raw HTTP verb/path is largely redundant metadata that an agent does not need, though it costs little space.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (presumably the generated key) and failure conditions; it does neither. The precondition is covered, but the ambiguous '(created with SSH)' phrasing leaves behavior only partially explained.

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 0% for the single 'name' parameter. The endpoint string 'HTTP POST /sandboxes/{name}/ssh-key' implicitly tells the agent that 'name' identifies the target sandbox, adding marginal meaning, but nothing about format or constraints is supplied.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate the SSH key of a sandbox') and scopes it with the precondition 'that has none yet', which lets an agent separate it from get_sandbox_ssh_key. The trailing parenthetical '(created with SSH)' is ambiguous and muddies an otherwise clear purpose.

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 condition 'that has none yet' implies when this tool applies versus reading an existing key, but it never names get_sandbox_ssh_key or add_ssh_key as the alternative, nor states what to do if a key already exists. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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