haops_manage_ssh_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the actions (list, add, revoke) without explaining authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens on revocation. For a tool modifying SSH keys, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word is meaningful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values and behavior. It mentions the compact summary vs full response via the verbose parameter but omits detailed response structure, error handling, or prerequisites. While the schema covers parameters, the tool description lacks completeness for a management tool with multiple actions.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds context about self-service and Git access but does not enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Manage' and specifies the resource 'SSH keys for HAOps Git access', listing the supported actions (list, add, revoke). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other entities like members, modules, or tickets.

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 explicitly mentions 'Agents can use this to self-service their SSH keys for git push access', which gives clear context and a specific use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives, though sibling tools offer no SSH key management alternatives.

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