brancher_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'via rsync', but does not disclose overwrite behavior, directory creation, error handling, or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about important safety-relevant behaviors.

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 fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficient, containing exactly the core information without wasted words.

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 having an output schema (content unknown), the description fails to address many aspects relevant to a file sync tool: return values, error conditions, whether directories are created, handling of existing files, permission requirements, or rsync flags. The brevity leaves significant gaps for practical usage.

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% — none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description merely restates the role of local_path and remote_path ('sync local_path to remote_path') but does not clarify their format, constraints, or the purpose of node_name and port. The linking of path parameters is the only semantic addition.

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 ('sync'), the source ('local_path'), destination ('remote_path'), the mechanism ('via rsync'), and the target ('on a Brancher node'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brancher_list, brancher_delete, and brancher_exec, which serve different purposes.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention when to use brancher_put instead of brancher_exec for file transfer, or if there are size or permission limitations.

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