jms_sftp_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key overwrite behavior, which is useful, but it stops short of explaining what happens when overwrite is false (error, skip, etc.), or other side effects like directory creation or authentication requirements. The disclosure is partial, earning a 3.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and includes the essential caveat. This is an example of efficient writing that earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain prerequisites like session_handle, path semantics, or error scenarios. The one-line description is not enough to understand the tool's full context, especially when compared to sibling tools that require session management.

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. It indirectly references local_path and remote_path via 'local file' and 'remote file' and mentions overwrite, but it fails to clarify session_handle, path formats, or the exact meaning of overwrite beyond the schema's default. The compensation is inadequate for a 4-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Upload a local file.' This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like jms_sftp_download, jms_sftp_rename, and jms_sftp_delete. The overwrite condition adds specificity without diluting the core purpose.

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 overwrite requirement ('replacing a remote file requires overwrite=true') provides clear context for a common use case and a critical constraint. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the purpose itself is self-evident against the sibling list, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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