ssh_upload

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavior: it verifies the file arrived intact. However, it does not mention overwrite semantics, permissions, error handling, or what happens on verification failure, so transparency is only partial.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is placed in the second sentence. Every word earns 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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, this is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters. It explains the core operation and verification intent, but omits mode/mkdir semantics, return value, and failure behavior, which an agent would need for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the role of local_path and remote_path, and leaves mode and mkdir entirely unexplained. The parameter names are self-evident, but no additional semantic detail is provided.

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 specific verb and resource: upload a local file to the server, plus the added behavior of verifying it arrived intact. It also distinguishes itself from ssh_file_write by explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear routing guidance: for content the user composed, use ssh_file_write instead, because it is idempotent and creates backups. This is an explicit when-not-to-use condition with a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the intended scope.

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