ssh_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers side effects: 'overwriting any existing remote file,' 'mutates remote state and is not idempotent beyond replacing the target,' 'creates no backup,' and the no-sudo limitation. It also discloses security-mode blocking. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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 largely efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, there is mild redundancy: 'overwriting any existing remote file at that path' is restated by 'not idempotent beyond replacing the target.' Both convey the same overwrite behavior, so a sentence could be trimmed. Overall it remains compact and well-structured.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies all critical operational context: prerequisites, destination writability, overwrite behavior, backup absence, security-mode restriction, and sibling routing. No essential information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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% but the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Local file path', 'Remote destination path'). The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: localPath must reference an existing local file, remotePath must be writable by the configured SSH user, and the upload overwrites any existing remote file. This enriches the parameter meaning without overloading.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Uploads one local file to a remote destination path over SFTP on the named server.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_download (opposite direction) and ssh_sync ('For directory trees use ssh_sync instead'). An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 names the alternative (ssh_sync) and the condition that selects it: 'For directory trees use ssh_sync instead.' It also provides concrete usage constraints: the local file must exist, the remote path must be writable by the SSH user, and the tool is blocked on readonly/restricted servers. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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