ssh_key_delete

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 does disclose that deletion triggers 'resource change notifications' via ctx and that it returns a status message, but it never states the destructive/irreversible nature of the operation or what happens on a non-existent key. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action 'Delete an SSH key,' followed by compact args and returns sections. No wasted sentences, though the inclusion of the ctx arg and returns details is moderately useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. For a single-parameter delete tool, the description documents ssh_key_id and ctx adequately. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral warnings about destructiveness, leaving the definition only partially 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, and it does. It explains that ssh_key_id accepts either an ID or a name ('my-laptop-key' or UUID), which is valuable beyond the bare 'string' schema type. It also documents the ctx parameter, which is absent from the input schema. This adds real meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an SSH key.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_key_list, ssh_key_get, ssh_key_create, and ssh_key_update by the delete verb. However, it doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the key must exist first, or when one would prefer ssh_key_update over delete), and provides no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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