ssh_key_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that a new SSH key is created and describes the returned fields, but it does not disclose behavior around duplicate keys, name conflicts, authentication requirements, or whether the operation overwrites. The core side effect is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections and contains no filler. The inclusion of the ctx parameter, which is not in the input schema, adds minor clutter, but overall the description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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, the description covers the required parameters, their meaning, and the return payload despite the output schema already existing. It lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case information, but the low complexity and clear parameter descriptions make it reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'Name for the SSH key' for the name parameter and a concrete example format for ssh_key ('ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1yc2...'). This goes well beyond the bare schema and helps an agent understand expected input format.

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 'Create a new SSH key' with a specific verb and resource, and the Args/Returns sections make the operation unambiguous. Among sibling tools like ssh_key_list, ssh_key_get, ssh_key_update, and ssh_key_delete, the create intent is immediately distinguishable.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking for existing keys with ssh_key_list or modifying with ssh_key_update. There are no context cues, preconditions, or exclusion statements to help an agent decide between this and related tools.

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