ssh_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key destructive behavior—overwriting an existing file—which is critical for an agent to know. However, it omits other important behavioral traits such as the requirement for an existing session, the effect of create_dirs, and what happens on failure or success.

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 that is tightly worded and front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes meaning: 'Write', 'text content', 'file', 'remote host', 'SFTP', and 'overwriting'. No unnecessary detail or repetition exists.

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?

Despite low complexity (4 flat scalar parameters), the description is missing important context that the schema doesn't provide: the create_dirs default behavior, the need for an active session, and any expected outcomes or response. The only extra context over the name is the SFTP mechanism and overwrite semantics. An agent could still misuse this tool without understanding session requirements or directory creation.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention any of the parameters by name or provide additional meaning for path, content, session_id, or create_dirs. The only indirect hints are 'text content' (mapping to content) and 'file' (mapping to path), which is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all four parameters.

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 ('Write') and resource ('file on the remote host') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ssh_read_file and ssh_exec. It also adds a precise mechanism (SFTP) and the overwriting behavior. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to write or overwrite a file on a remote host over SFTP. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of prerequisites like an active session, and no comparison to alternative siblings. The description does enough to suggest its purpose but leaves the reasoning to the agent.

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