ssh_sftp_write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the file is created if it does not exist, but critically omits whether existing files are overwritten or appended. It also does not disclose behavior around encoding (though schema covers default), permissions, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word adds value.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values (success/failure), error handling, idempotency, or size constraints. The note about file creation is helpful but insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 100% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds a behavioral note about file auto-creation, which is not in the schema, but does not elaborate on parameter-specific nuances like path formats or encoding usage.

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 writes content to a file on a remote server using SFTP, and notes that it creates the file if it does not exist. This is a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_sftp_read_file or ssh_sftp_delete_file.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ssh_execute_command for shell-based file writing) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites like an active connection or constraints like file size limits.

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