put_file

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior; the description adds a pinned ToolError for missing local files before driver binding and specifies the return fields. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing an error precondition and operation result shape, with no contradiction.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second adds error behavior and return shape, making every word earn its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter copy tool with output schema and annotations already present, the description covers the transfer mechanism, the precondition, and the return semantics. Combined with the structured data, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It clarifies place as 'an acquired place', local_path as a local file that must exist, and remote_path as the destination, plus notes that 'bytes' is the local file size. It doesn't specify path formats or place identifiers, but it provides functional meaning for all three parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase: 'Copy a local file to remote_path on an acquired place (scp)', clearly identifying action, resource, and method. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_file (reverse direction) and ssh_run (command execution) by naming the scp transfer behavior.

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?

It states the context 'on an acquired place', implying a prerequisite that the place must be acquired before calling, and 'scp' signals network file transfer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the highest bar, but the context is clear.

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