ssh_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'automatic permission handling' but does not clarify key aspects like whether it backs up files by default (backup option default true), requires sudo, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a deployment tool with sensitive operations.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 (multiple options, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to explain deployment specifics like whether existing files are replaced, how backups work, or what the return value is, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'automatic permission handling', which hints at the owner/permissions options but adds little beyond the schema. 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 'Deploy files to remote server with automatic permission handling' clearly states the action (deploy) and resource (files to remote server). The phrase 'automatic permission handling' adds specificity that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_upload or ssh_sync, which do not emphasize permission management.

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 such as ssh_upload or ssh_sync. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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