ssh_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool mutates the destination, that delete true is destructive, that dryRun true is safe, that compression is on by default, that password auth requires sshpass, that it is blocked on readonly/restricted servers, and that the timeout defaults to 30000 ms.

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 dense but efficient, with the core purpose front-loaded and every subsequent sentence carrying operational or safety value. The Windows path warning is lengthy but essential, and no unnecessary fluff is present.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers path semantics, defaults, destructive behavior, auth requirements, and blocking conditions comprehensively. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the return value or result output, which would normally be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: local:/remote: prefix semantics, Windows native path requirements and the MSYS2 conversion warning, the no-prefix push assumption, and functional details for delete, dryRun, compress, and timeout defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: synchronizes files or directories between local and remote using rsync over SSH on the named server. It clearly distinguishes this from one-way transfer siblings like ssh_upload and ssh_download by requiring local:/remote: prefixes and supporting bidirectional sync.

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?

Provides strong usage context: both source and destination need prefixes, exactly one side must be local and the other remote, and a missing prefix assumes a push from local to remote. It also gives platform-specific path guidance and prerequisites like sshpass, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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