Push File to Remote Machine

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining atomic writes, overwrite behavior, plan-related failure reasons, 24-hour blob TTL, and the tool's inability to access the user's local filesystem. These are material behavioral details an agent needs to avoid incorrect calls.

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 long but densely informative, covering plan gating, blob provenance, overwrite semantics, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the most critical constraint (PRO PLAN ONLY). Some redundancy exists around Free/anonymous restrictions, but each sentence largely earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, this description covers prerequisites, failure modes, parameter formats, and safety warnings. It even supplies the exact upload command when the user has no blob_id. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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% and each parameter already has a solid description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra operational nuance: dest_path must be absolute and overwrites atomically, code can be an AIC- session code or alias, and blob_id can come from a prior remote_pull. This additional context justifies a 4.

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+resource: 'Write a stored file ONTO a remote machine' and clarifies it takes a blob_id, not a local path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_pull and remote_exec.

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 explicitly says when to avoid this tool (small text files → use remote_exec heredoc) and when to use it (binary or anything over a few KB). It also explains how to obtain a blob_id via remote_pull or the upload command, and gives upgrade instructions for Free/anonymous users.

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