ssh_write_file

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

The description mentions 'creates or overwrites', which is good, but lacks detail on side effects, permissions required, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., file size). With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could benefit from a brief note on return behavior.

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?

Given the tool modifies remote files and has 7 parameters, the description lacks crucial details such as return value (success/failure), error handling, safety precautions, and whether content is binary-safe. Insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 (write content to a file via SFTP) and mentions the behavior (creates or overwrites). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_read_file, but does not explicitly differentiate from ssh_upload (which likely uploads local files).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_upload or ssh_read_file. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent without direction.

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