Push local workspace file

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds a valuable safety behavior: existing remote files are backed up by default. It does not mention sensitive-path exclusions or dry-run, but those are covered in the parameter schema, so the description adds appropriate context beyond 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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and include a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description only covers the basic operation and backup default. While the schema explains parameters, the description lacks broader deployment context (e.g., typical use cases, behavior when duplicate paths exist, or interaction with domain roots) that would help an agent understand when to invoke it.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The description clarifies the overall flow (local to remote) but does not add meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 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 the specific action: reading a local workspace file and writing it to the matching remote path. This clearly distinguishes it from reverse operations like pull_file_to_workspace and direct write tools like write_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention deployment workflows, nor does it indicate when to avoid it (e.g., for creating new files or inline edits). The sibling tools suggest related operations, but no comparative context is given.

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