sftp_upload

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

The description discloses that the operation is in-process using ssh2, does not rely on scp.exe or WSL, and is headless, which is useful context beyond the raw function. However, it does not mention whether existing remote files are overwritten, how authentication is selected (despite multiple auth params), or what the tool returns upon success/failure.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the mechanism and constraints; the second gives a concrete use case. Every word 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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and a use case, but it lacks information about auth selection (password vs key), overwrite behavior, and expected return values. While the schema covers parameter meanings, the description doesn't fully contextualize the operation for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides a description for every parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the generic upload action, so it stays at baseline.

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 action (Upload), the resource (local file to a remote host), and the protocol (SFTP). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting in-process execution (ssh2, no scp.exe/WSL) and headless operation, and mentions a primary use case for deploying scripts/configs to Linux hosts.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use to deploy scripts/configs to Linux hosts.' It also hints at when this tool is appropriate by contrasting with scp.exe/WSL (in-process, headless). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it's not as strong as a 5.

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