server_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses key side effects: persisting to .env and updating the in-memory cache, plus the operational benefit of no restart required. While it does not detail error cases or security implications, the main behavioral traits are transparently stated.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main action ('register a new SSH server') and immediately states the important side effects. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or tangential information.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and side effects, but omits guidance on conflict resolution (e.g., duplicate name) or success feedback. While the schema handles parameter details, the lack of outcome/error behavior means the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys (e.g., host, username, port, password vs privateKey). The description's focus is on the operation, not the parameters, so it neither compensates nor degrades beyond baseline.

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 specific action ('register a new SSH server at runtime') and the resource (SSH server), plus mentions the side effects (write .env, update cache). It distinguishes itself from siblings like server_list and server_exec by focusing on the addition operation.

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 a use case: add a server without restarting the connector, making it available to server_exec. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., manually editing .env) or provide when-not-to-use conditions. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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