sftp_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint (the uploadRoots containment rule) plus remotePath absoluteness. However it is silent on the default overwrite=true semantics, i.e. that existing remote files are replaced by default, and says nothing about permissions/mode behavior or authentication needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and why you would reach for it, and no filler. The path-constraint sentences are dense but each carries a distinct rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for an unannotated mutation tool with 5 parameters, the description omits the destructive-by-default overwrite behavior and the meaning of mode, leaving an agent without enough to call it safely in all cases.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains remotePath (must be absolute, must sit under uploadRoots) and localPath (any readable local path), but leaves mode and overwrite completely undefined — overwrite being the most consequential omission since it defaults to true.

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 (upload) and resource (local file or directory to a remote host over SFTP), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the mirror-image sibling sftp_download, so an agent must infer the direction distinction rather than being told.

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?

"Use to ship code, config or binaries before running deploy commands" gives a concrete usage context and even implies ordering relative to the ssh_run deploy siblings. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or explicitly pointing at sftp_download for the reverse direction.

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