sftp_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals auto-detection of files vs directories and recursive directory uploads, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or failure handling—material gaps for a mutation/upload tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail without repeating schema information.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation behavior: source path, destination path, connection requirement, and directory recursion. Overwrite/conflict semantics and return values are not detailed, but they are secondary for this straightforward upload operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that localPath may be a file or directory and that remotePath is on the connected remote host, going beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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?

States an explicit verb ('Upload') with a clear resource scope ('local file or directory to a connected remote host via SFTP'). The local-to-remote direction and recursive behavior clearly distinguish it from siblings like sftp_download and sftp_read.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as sftp_write, sftp_download, or ssh_exec. It implies an active SFTP connection is required but never states exclusions or selection criteria.

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