site_file_put

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that content travels through the model (implying size limits), that SSH is required (FASTPANEL_SSH_HOST), that parent directories are created, and that the file is chowned to the site's user. This gives a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, with purpose stated first, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a file-writing tool: it covers operation, constraints, size limits, encoding, and prerequisites (SSH). It lacks error handling or failure modes but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. No output schema exists, so return values aren't explained, which is acceptable.

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 67%, leaving confirm and dry_run without descriptions. The description adds value by explaining rel_path as relative to web root, content max size (256KB), and encoding for binary. It does not describe confirm/dry_run beyond the WRITE pattern mention, but overall compensates well.

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 states it writes a single small file to a site's web root via SSH and chowns it. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that site_files_upload/site_files_deploy are for real payloads, making the differentiation obvious.

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 explicitly advises using this tool for quick one-off files (index.html, .htaccess, robots.txt) and directs larger payloads to site_files_upload/site_files_deploy. It also explains the WRITE pattern with dry_run and confirm, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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