sftp_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It claims a 'fast' upload but says nothing about overwrite behavior on an existing remote file, required permissions, connection requirements (connectionId defaults to the current connection), or how failures are reported — all material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the source-to-destination framing is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it forgoes any useful elaboration.

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 3-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is just barely sufficient. It omits overwrite semantics, error behavior, and any statement of what distinguishes it from sftp_write_file, which a mutation tool with no annotations should cover.

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 and connectionId are already documented in the schema, including the default-connection behavior. The description adds no syntax, path format, or override details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (上传/upload), the source (宿主机本地文件) and the destination (远程目标主机), so the agent knows the direction of transfer. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling sftp_write_file, which also writes to a remote path, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as sftp_write_file or sftp_download. An agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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