write_remote_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool 'handles large files, binary data, and special characters correctly,' which distinguishes it from shell-based methods. However, it does not disclose key behaviors like whether existing files are overwritten, how the append parameter affects behavior, or any permission/error expectations.

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 compact and well-structured: first sentence states the primary action, second gives usage direction, third justifies why this tool is preferred. Every sentence earns its place, and the main point is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves gaps about file overwrite behavior, append semantics, and session prerequisites (beyond 'established session'). For a mutating tool with no annotations, this is a significant omission, making the description only partially complete.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains the parameters, especially 'append,' which is ambiguous. Parameter names like session_id and remote_path are somewhat self-explanatory, but content and append require more detail. The description adds little beyond what the bare schema shows.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write content to a file on the remote host using the established session.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling send_command by explicitly saying to use this tool instead of echo, redirection, or heredocs with send_command.

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 clear guidance: 'Use this tool to write file contents instead of using echo, redirection, or heredocs with send_command.' It names the alternative and the scenario. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the context is well implied.

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