ssh_upload

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 mentions SFTP, which is useful, but it does not reveal authentication requirements, whether remote directories are created, overwrite behavior, or any side effects of the transfer.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and protocol efficiently, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Despite a rich 7-parameter schema, the description gives only minimal context. It omits important operational details such as credential handling, required authentication method, transfer behavior, and expected output, which are not covered elsewhere since no output schema or annotations exist.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little beyond mapping local file to localPath and remote host to remotePath, which is expected given the schema already explains each parameter.

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 clearly states a specific action (Upload), the object (a local file), and destination (remote host via SFTP). It is unambiguous and self-contained, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ssh_write_file or ssh_download.

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 the tool is for transferring a local file to a remote host, which conveys basic usage context. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as ssh_write_file for writing remote content directly, nor any exclusions.

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