ssh-write-chunk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes append/rewrite modes and token efficiency but omits key details like connection handling, overwrite behavior, error semantics, or return value. For a write tool, this is insufficient.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds mode and efficiency hint. It is efficient but sacrifices depth. No fluff, but missing needed details.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., SSH key setup), or how multiple chunks interact. It is incomplete for a reliable agent invocation.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds only a general hint about token efficiency without enriching individual parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Write', the resource 'remote files', and specifies append/rewrite modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh-edit-block. The mention of token efficiency for large content adds further context.

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 implies use for writing or updating remote files, especially large content, but does not explicitly compare with siblings like ssh-edit-block or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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