ssh_scp_to

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scp mechanism and the multiplexed-connection reuse, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain side effects like overwriting existing remote files, permission requirements, or behavior on failure. It's adequate but thin for a mutation tool with zero annotations.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary purpose and direction. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 is moderately complex (5 params, scp directionality), and the description covers core purpose well. However, without annotations or output schema, it could add value by clarifying the mux requirement (does enabling mux require it to be pre-established?), overwrite behavior, and what the tool returns on success/failure. Adequate but with clear gaps for a network mutation tool.

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 80% (4 of 5 params documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic insight that 'recursive' is required for directory uploads and that the connection may be reused via mux. While most param meaning is in the schema, the description's recusal of scp/mux behavior adds value above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (upload), resource (local file/directory to remote host), and mechanism (scp). It distinguishes from sibling ssh_scp_from (which is download) through the 'upload' direction, and from read/write tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, only implying direction via 'to'.

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 conveys when to use it (uploading local files to remote), but gives no explicit when-not-to or alternative recommendations. The clear 'upload' vs sibling 'from' direction implies when to choose this tool, but no explicit exclusions are stated (e.g., for text content use ssh_write_file instead).

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