Upload a file into WSL

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotent, non-readOnly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the Windows-side path resolution rule, the warning to check the echoed resolved path, and the security refusal of credential/MCP-config files on the local side.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the caveats. No padding; each sentence carries distinct information (resolution rule, verification prompt, refusal policy).

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 an upload tool whose annotations handle the destructive/open-world profile and whose schema documents all three parameters, the description covers the operation and its notable edge cases (path resolution, refusals, verify-the-reply). No output schema exists, and the description appropriately mentions the printed reply rather than return structure.

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 localPath/remotePath/session semantics are already documented (including that remotePath is the file, not its directory). The description's path-resolution and refusal notes are behavioral rather than parameter-facing, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (file) with an explicit direction — 'from this machine into the distro' — which implicitly distinguishes it from the reverse-direction sibling wsl_download. It stops short of naming or contrasting siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 constraint context (refused credential/config files) and a path-resolution caveat, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like wsl_write_file or wsl_download. Usage is only implied from the tool's name and direction.

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