ssh_file_write

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 explains the atomic write sequence (hash, temporary file, verify, rename), guarantees the production file never contains unverified content, and states the idempotent behavior with changed=false on repeated calls. This goes beyond the schema and provides critical safety context, though it omits details on backup creation, validation failure handling, and owner/mode effects.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and then explaining the deliberate order and guarantees. Every sentence earns its place without filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity it addresses.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the core atomic/idempotent behavior but does not document parameters, return values (beyond the changed flag), side effects (backup, owner changes), or failure modes. An agent would need additional information to correctly invoke the tool with proper values for mode, owner, backup, and validate.

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 only 14% (only the 'validate' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no explanation for the seven parameters—server, remote_path, content, mode, owner, backup, validate. It does not clarify expected formats, defaults (beyond schema), or how parameters interact (e.g., backup behavior, validate command syntax). The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Put a file on the server' (Положить файл на сервер), and adds defining characteristics 'atomically and idempotently' (атомарно и идемпотентно). This distinguishes it from simpler upload tools like ssh_upload, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when to use the tool through its emphasis on atomicity and idempotency (e.g., for safe, repeatable writes), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like ssh_upload or ssh_run, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative selection criteria. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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