upload

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

Annotations already mark this as a write (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the remote parent directory is created automatically, which tells the agent it need not pre-create directories. It omits overwrite semantics for an existing remote file, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then protocol and the parent-directory note. No wasted words, though the extreme brevity is close to under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the write/non-destructive profile. However, for a three-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the connection semantics and overwrite behavior are missing, leaving real gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters (connection, local_path, remote_path) are undocumented structurally. The description indirectly conveys local_path and remote_path via 'local file' and 'remote', but says nothing about the 'connection' parameter (format, reference to connection_list, auth expectations), leaving a required parameter unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (upload a local file to a remote host) and even specifies the protocol (SFTP), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling 'download'. It does not explicitly reference the sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 implies its use case but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the obvious alternative 'download', and no prerequisites such as valid connection setup. An agent must infer everything about routing.

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