ssh_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic permission handling' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., sudo requirements, permission defaults, how conflicts are resolved). It also omits side effects like backup or service restart (both present in options schema). The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be restructured to include a brief usage note without adding length. The brevity sacrifices completeness but is not verbose.

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 (nested objects for files, multiple options including sudo password and service restart) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (e.g., success/failure messages), prerequisites (e.g., SSH connectivity, server aliases), or common use cases. A more complete description would cover these to help agents properly invoke the tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. For a baseline of 3, this is appropriate—the description does not compensate for any gaps but also does not repeat schema.

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 purpose: deploying files to a remote server, with the key feature of automatic permission handling. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_upload (simple upload) and ssh_sync (sync) by specifying a core functionality (permission handling).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_upload, ssh_sync, or ssh_backup_create. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is preferred, or when to avoid it. The context of 33 sibling tools amplifies the need for explicit usage guidelines.

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