ssh_upload_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic upload action and does not disclose whether the remote file is overwritten, whether directories are created automatically, or any side effects. Authentication requirements are present only in the schema, not the description.

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, clear sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. While it is terse, it is not under-specified to the point of being unhelpful.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to guide correct use in all situations. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., local file existence), authentication choices, or behavior on conflicts, which are essential for a file-transfer tool. The schema covers parameter syntax but not operational context.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., localPath, remotePath, password, privateKeyPath). The description adds no additional semantic meaning, such as the relationship between password and privateKeyPath or path format requirements, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate due to full 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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and clearly identifies the resource ('local file to remote host via SFTP channel'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like ssh_download_file (opposite operation) and ssh_exec (command execution).

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 implies use when a file needs to be transferred to a remote host via SFTP, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to consider. Sibling tools exist (e.g., ssh_download_file) but are not referenced, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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