ssh_file_write

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

The description details important behavioral aspects: atomic write (temp name + rename), no partial files, optional sha256 verification, and whole-file replacement with no append. These align with the destructive and idempotent hints. Minor imprecision: says 'text files' while the schema supports binary via base64, but this is a small oversight.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core function, explains the atomic mechanism and verification, notes the append limitation, and closes with an alternative. Every sentence contributes to the understanding.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. It covers the essential behavioral aspects, including atomicity, permissions, verification, and the distinction from ssh_upload. It doesn't discuss error handling, but that is not required given the output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds context like 'each with its own permissions' (mode) and 'optional sha256 check' (verify), which enriches understanding without contradicting the 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 and specifically states the tool's function: writing text files to a server, supporting multiple files per call, each with its own permissions. It also explicitly contrasts with ssh_upload, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear alternative usage condition: 'For something that already exists on this machine, use ssh_upload.' This gives guidance on when to prefer another tool. It doesn't explicitly discuss other alternatives, but the provided hint is sufficient for typical usage.

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