ssh_write_file

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only states 'write content' and 'creates or overwrites'. Missing details: authentication method, required permissions, error handling, connection retry, handling of binary content, and whether the directory must exist. The password warning in the schema is not echoed in the description.

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 concise sentence that clearly conveys the core function. No redundant words; every part serves a purpose. Front-loads the verb and resource.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It fails to explain return values, error cases, or important context like security considerations (password warning from schema). The tool is more complex than the description suggests.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 verb 'write content to a file' and the resource 'on a remote host via SFTP', which distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_read_file (read), ssh_delete (delete), or ssh_exec (execute commands). The phrase 'Creates or overwrites the file' further clarifies the operation's effect.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., ssh_upload for uploading files, ssh_exec for command execution). There is no discussion of prerequisites (e.g., directory existence, SFTP availability) or when not to use it (e.g., for large files or sensitive data).

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