ssh_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: overwrite semantics are explicit, the 30s pool wait discloses blocking behavior, and the whitelist/blacklist exemption is a safety-relevant trait. It stops short of disclosing failure modes, parent-directory creation, or return behavior, but the critical destructive and latency behaviors are covered.

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, each earning its place: purpose/overwrite semantics front-loaded first, operational wait behavior second, and the safety-relevant policy exemption third. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most decision-relevant facts appear first.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational profile: what it does, that it overwrites, how long it may block, and its relationship to command policy. Minor gaps remain — return/error behavior and whether parent directories are created — but nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value about connection pooling and policy but does not add meaning to any specific parameter, so it neither gains nor loses points.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Write content to a file on a remote host via SFTP') and immediately adds 'Creates or overwrites the file.' The SFTP mechanism and the explicit reference to ssh_exec/ssh_multi_exec in the policy note clearly differentiate it from command-execution and read siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 an explicit, useful when-not signal: it is NOT gated by SSH_MCP_COMMAND_WHITELIST/BLACKLIST, and it names the alternatives that are (ssh_exec, ssh_multi_exec). It provides clear operational context (pool-full wait) but does not explicitly route an agent between this tool and other file-related siblings like ssh_upload or ssh_read_file.

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