host_push_from_shared

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the transport mechanism: resumable rsync when available, falling back to SCP. It does not detail overwrite behavior, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and direction are front-loaded, followed by a useful implementation detail about rsync/SCP behavior.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, and annotations cover the destructive nature. The main gap is parameter semantics: with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, an agent may not know what to pass for remote_path or what timeout/full_output control. The core selection and direction are clear, but full invocation guidance is incomplete.

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 for missing parameter explanations. It only implies the roles of shared_path and host_id through the overall sentence, and never explains remote_path, timeout, or full_output. The optional destination semantics are left entirely to inference.

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 ('Push'), resource ('file or directory'), and a clear directional scope ('from the local shared workspace into one host workspace'). This inherently distinguishes it from the opposite sibling host_pull_to_shared and other shared/host tools.

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?

It clearly states the transfer direction and target, giving an agent an obvious use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as host_pull_to_shared or shared_write.

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