ssh_write_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the file is created or overwritten, and that append=true changes behavior. The create_dirs default behavior is not described in the tool description itself, but is documented in the schema. It doesn't mention failure modes, permissions requirements, or what happens on errors.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and option, the second explains the advantage over the alternative. Every word 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?

While the tool description is clear and the schema covers all parameters, there's no output schema and no description of what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, byte count, error messages). For a write operation with mutation side effects and no annotations, more behavioral context about result/errors would improve completeness, though the core usage is adequately covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds some value by clarifying the append=false default means overwrite and by mentioning create/overwrite semantics, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource+action: 'Write UTF-8 text content directly to a file on the remote host' with create/overwrite/append semantics. It distinguishes itself from ssh_scp_to by explicitly calling out 'Avoids the round-trip of writing a local temp file and scp-ing it.'

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (write text content directly) and contrasts with the scp alternative, implying use when avoiding the temp-file round trip. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus ssh_apply_patch or other write-related tools, but the alternative context is present.

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