ssh_save_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose an important side effect: with a pending_id, the live connection is renamed and no reconnection happens. However, it does not explain what happens without a pending_id, how overwrite behaves, or whether saving mutates persistent stored server data.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core purpose and then add the key workflow caveat. There is no filler; every sentence contributes essential 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?

Despite good high-level workflow context, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity: 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. An agent cannot fully determine behavior for the standalone save case or what happens with existing server names, overwrite, or optional connection details.

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 only 8%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies name and pending_id. The other ten parameters, including host, port, user, tags, key_file, password, overwrite, and passphrase, are left to schema names and defaults, leaving a substantial gap for a 12-parameter tool.

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 a specific action: save a server under a user-provided name. It further distinguishes itself from connection-oriented siblings by explicitly tying the tool to ssh_connect's pending_id, making its role in the workflow unmistakable.

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 says the tool is usually called immediately after ssh_connect with its pending_id, and explains that in that case the live connection is renamed without reconnecting. It gives a clear primary use case, though it does not discuss when not to use it or alternative paths.

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