ssh_deploy

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

With no annotations to carry safety/behavior information, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It discloses mutation of remote state, the temporary-upload-before-move sequence, backup-on-overwrite behavior, sudo password usage, hook execution, and blocking on readonly/restricted servers.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place; the core action and mutation warning are front-loaded, followed by backup, option coverage, defaults, hooks, and the security-mode blocker. Despite covering many facets, it stays compact and scannable.

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 state-mutating deployment tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: mechanics, backup behavior, options, defaults, hooks, and security restrictions. It does not describe the return format or failure cleanup behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that each file is uploaded to a temporary location before being moved, that backup is on by default and can be disabled, that owner/permission defaults are detected from the remote path, and that restart targets a single service. This enriches the bare parameter names.

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 opening sentence states a specific action, resource, and target: deploying a list of local files to remote paths on a named server, with a distinctive temp-then-move mechanism. It is clear, but it never explicitly contrasts with closely related siblings such as ssh_upload or ssh_sync, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives clear operational context: use for multi-file deployment with backup defaults, owner/permission handling, hooks, optional service restart, and a hard exclusion on readonly/restricted servers. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over ssh_upload or ssh_sync, so it falls short of a 5.

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