site_file_put

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

Describes behavioral traits beyond annotations: file writing over SSH, chowning to site user, creating parent directories, dry_run/confirm workflow, and content size limit (256KB). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns perfectly without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, use case/alternatives, parameter guidance. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the operation (write, chown, create parent dirs) and the overall workflow. It is complete for a simple file writing tool with clear parameters and behavior.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. For parameters like 'dry_run' and 'confirm', the description explains their role ('dry_run:true to preview, confirm:true to execute'). For 'rel_path', it clarifies 'relative to the web root; parent directories are created as needed.' It also reinforces that 'content' has a max size and how to use encoding for binary. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description 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 the tool writes a single small file into a site's web root from inline content via SSH, then chowns it. It provides specific examples (index.html, .htaccess, robots.txt) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (site_files_upload/site_files_deploy), 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'quick one-off files (index.html placeholder, .htaccess, robots.txt)' and when not: 'use site_files_upload/site_files_deploy for real payloads.' Also mentions the prerequisite: 'Requires SSH (FASTPANEL_SSH_HOST).'

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