sftp_upload

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

No annotations are present, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the upload action and mentions the overwrite parameter indirectly via schema. It does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, whether an active connection is needed, or any side effects beyond file upload. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single sentence that covers the core purpose and key usage hint. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error outcomes, prerequisites (like active connection), or behavior when overwrite is set. The tool performs a meaningful action, and the description does not adequately prepare an agent for its use.

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 each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description adds context about alias/host priority and connection state, which provides some added value. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('上传本地文件到远程服务器' - upload local files to remote server) and the resource (local file, remote server). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sftp_download and sftp_ls by specifying upload direction.

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 provides guidance on using alias vs host for target server specification, and notes that host can be omitted when there's a single active connection. This helps the agent decide between connection methods, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide exclusion criteria.

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