Push an uploaded file to the same remote path on every host in a fleet

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: concurrent fan-out, edit-level access requirement, single-file limitation, server-side buffering, and SFTP transport. It does not contradict the annotations and goes beyond what they declare.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose first, then concurrency/access scope, then limitations and transport. Every sentence adds new information and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers high-level behavior but omits the meaning of the sole parameter, the source of the 'same remote path' (not in the schema), and any indication of the return value (no output schema). For a tool with one param and no schema help, this leaves critical gaps that prevent reliable invocation.

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 schema has one required integer 'id' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the description does not explain what this id refers to. An agent cannot tell whether id is the uploaded file's identifier, a fleet id, or something else, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('Push'), a precise resource ('an uploaded file'), and a clear target ('the same remote path on every host in a fleet'). It distinguishes the tool from related fleet operations like run_command_across_every_host_fleet and pull_same_remote_path_every_host, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear context about the operation and its concurrent fan-out, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use. There is no comparison to related pull/run tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate situation from the name and first sentence.

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