Put a file beside a terminal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It usefully discloses that the write lands on the remote machine and that it returns the path, but says nothing about overwrite/collision behavior, permission requirements, or error conditions for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the location and return value packed in and zero filler. Nothing should be trimmed.

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?

All four parameters are schema-documented, and although there is no output schema, the description covers the return value ('where it landed'). Complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could say more about remote-write side effects.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description implies the text-vs-base64 split via 'image to paste, a patch' but adds no format or exclusivity detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Write) and resource (a file beside a live terminal, on its machine), plus concrete use cases (image to paste, a patch). It distinguishes itself from the read/inspect siblings but never explains how it differs from the closely-named herdr_file_write, leaving genuine ambiguity.

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 parenthetical use cases imply when to reach for it (delivering a payload for a program to read), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative. With herdr_file_write sitting right beside it, the omission matters.

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