sftp_write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but never states whether an existing file is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, what permissions/authentication are required, or what happens on failure. For a write operation this is a significant gap.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context: connection prerequisites, overwrite semantics, and failure/return behavior. The schema covers the parameters, but the behavioral picture an agent needs is absent.

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% - 'path' and 'content' are both documented directly in the schema - so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or encoding detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g. whether content is text or base64).

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Записать/загрузить файл', write/upload a file) plus the transport (via SFTP) and target (remote server), which cleanly separates it from siblings like sftp_read_file and sftp_delete. It is clear without being explicitly differentiated from siblings in prose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that sftp_connect must run first), and no mention of related siblings such as sftp_delete or sftp_read_file. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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