ssh_write_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, creates directories, requires prior connection, or how it handles errors. The minimal description 'writes content to a file' provides no behavioral context.

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, concise sentence in Spanish. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose. Still, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context, such as prerequisites (SSH connection), return values, or side effects. Sibling tools like ssh_connect suggest dependencies that are not mentioned.

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% and both parameters (path, content) have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic value is provided, but the schema itself is clear.

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 'Escribe contenido a un archivo en el servidor remoto' clearly states the action (write) and resource (file on remote server), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_read_file (read), ssh_upload (transfer), and ssh_exec (execute commands).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_upload or ssh_exec. Does not specify prerequisites like an established SSH connection or scenarios like file overwrite behavior.

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