ssh_append_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 mentions the basic action and file creation but does not disclose potential side effects such as permission errors, encoding issues, concurrency behavior, or resource limits. 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 concise with two clear paragraphs and a bullet-style args list. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the operation, highlighting efficiency, noting file creation, and listing parameters. 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core usage but lacks details on error handling, permission requirements, encoding (e.g., binary vs. text), and size limits. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'path' is described as 'Path to the file on the remote', 'content' as 'Text content to append', and 'host' includes default behavior ('Uses default if omitted'). This adds significant value.

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 tool appends text to a file on a remote server. The verb 'append' and resource 'file on remote server' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_write_file (which overwrites) and ssh_read_file.

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 indicates it is efficient for large files with no read round-trip needed, and that the file is created if it does not exist. This provides clear context for when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implied distinction from write/read.

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