sftp-upload

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool overwrites an existing file unconditionally, that there is no overwrite flag, and that there is no way to force a new destination. This gives the agent concrete insight into side effects. It does not cover edge cases like whether missing parent directories are created, but the main destructive trait is clear.

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 terse sentences, with the primary action first and the critical overwrite caveat immediately after. No filler or restatement of the name/schema exists.

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 simple three-parameter upload with complete schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the core action and danger. It is incomplete regarding the sibling sftp-upload-file relationship and the behavior when the target path does not already exist, which an agent may need to know before calling.

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%, so the schema fully documents content, profile, and remotePath; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that there is no overwrite flag, which is already evident from the schema. No deduction is warranted, but neither is any elevation.

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 identifies a specific action (upload a file) and resource (remote server via SFTP), and adds the key caveat of unconditional replacement. It does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling sftp-upload-file, so it falls short of 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 phrase 'secure file transfer, not shell-based' gives implied context for choosing SFTP over command tools, and the overwrite warning implies avoiding it when a new destination is required. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., sftp-upload-file) or states when-not-to-use, so guidance remains implicit.

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