paserver_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the operation (file transfer) and mentions timeout and wildcard behavior. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing remote files, permission requirements, failure modes, or whether the remote directory must exist. For a transfer tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, justifying a 3.

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 well-structured: an opening sentence that states the purpose, a line about the wrapper, a sentence listing use cases, and a clean 'Args' section. It is front-loaded with the primary action. It is not overly verbose, though the use-case sentence could be considered slightly redundant. Overall, it is concise and easy to scan, earning a 4.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and what each parameter means. It doesn't describe the return value, but since an output schema exists, that is presumably handled separately. It also doesn't discuss prerequisites like an active PAServer connection, but that may be implied by the profile parameter. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though a bit more on prerequisites would push it to a 5.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does. The 'Args' section provides a clear one-line explanation for each parameter: 'profile: Connection Profile name.', 'local_path: File or directory on this Windows box. May contain wildcards.', 'remote_dir: Destination directory on the PAServer host.', 'timeout: Seconds before the transfer is killed (default 300).', and 'studio_root: Optional Studio install root.' This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds value by clarifying defaults and optionality.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Push a file or directory') and the resource ('to the PAServer remote host'). It also mentions the wrapped command, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'paserver_get' (which pulls), though the verb 'push' implies the direction. Sibling differentiation is not explicit, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides concrete use cases: 'staging files for a manual remote build, replacing assets the IDE didn't deploy, or seeding the PAServer scratch directory.' These are clear contexts for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'paserver_get' for the reverse direction. The guidance is present but not exhaustive, earning a 4.

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