ssh_upload_dir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses recursion, but omits critical behaviors such as the overwrite flag defaulting to false, whether remote directories are created if absent, permission requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and recursion without fluff. It is concise and aptly sized for the basic intent, though it omits detail that would make it more helpful.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain timeout semantics, overwrite behavior, path conventions, or what happens on conflict. The recursive note is useful but leaves significant 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%, and the description does not compensate. It implicitly covers local_dir and remote_dir, but leaves timeout and overwrite unexplained. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is risky for nuanced parameters like overwrite.

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 tool uploads a local directory to a remote host and explicitly notes recursive upload of all files. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_upload (single file) and ssh_download_dir.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ssh_upload is for single files, nor provide conditions like 'use this for directory trees' or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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