Write Remote Text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds the behavioral detail that writing occurs through SSH stdin, but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, how errors are handled, or what success looks like. This is moderate additional context beyond annotations.

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 with no redundancy. It directly states the core action and audience, fitting the tool's simplicity.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, destructive hint), the description is minimal but not severely lacking. It covers the basic purpose and method, but does not address return behavior, error conditions, or overwrite semantics, which would be helpful for a destructive operation.

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 all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters like path, content, mode, or createDirs, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's action (write), target (a file on the configured SSH host), and method (through SSH stdin). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like remote_ssh_write_file_base64 by specifying UTF-8 text.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that remote_ssh_write_file_base64 should be used for binary content, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is that it handles text.

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