ncloud_import_login_key

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., behavior if key name already exists), success/failure semantics, or return values. It only restates the basic action without adding operational insight.

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 sentence that directly states the action with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the key 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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the context is incomplete. It lacks guidance on side effects, prerequisites, or what happens on success/failure. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide operational completeness.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('SSH public key') with a clear target ('login key'), making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_login_key and delete_login_keys by focusing on importing an existing key.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context such as 'use when you have an existing public key'. It simply states the action without any situational context or exclusions.

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