timeweb_add_ssh_key_to_server

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only the basic action (adding a key) but omits behavioral traits such as whether the key replaces existing keys, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no behavioral/usage context. The description is adequate for basic selection but lacks details like return value, effect on existing keys, or prerequisites, leaving gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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% parameter description coverage (server_id, ssh_key_id, format). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a specific action ('Add an SSH key to a server') with a purpose ('for authentication'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ssh_key (which creates a key resource) and other server actions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., key and server must exist), or scenarios where a different tool would be appropriate. The description simply states the action without context.

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