push

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses transport options (FTP via zftpd at port 2120, fallback to Web File Manager), skip/resume semantics, force behavior, permission changes (chmod 0755), execute-bit verification, ShadowMount registration, and session-level blocking after failed title uploads.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most subsequent details earn their place given the tool's complexity. The single dense paragraph is still somewhat long and could be easier to scan, but it avoids obvious filler.

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 complex, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers invocation context, fallback behavior, edge cases, and side effects. It does not describe return values or error responses, which leaves a small gap for an agent needing to interpret outcomes.

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 clearly explains remote_path as absolute and destination-naming, including the trailing-slash folder convention, and explains force=True as resending everything. local_path is only implied as the source path, so it does not fully cover all three parameters.

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: 'Copy a file or folder from this Mac to the console.' The direction clearly distinguishes it from pull, the reverse-direction sibling, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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 a clear usage context and one explicit when-not condition: it is refused while another agent has claimed the console. However, it does not explicitly name or route to alternatives such as pull for the reverse direction.

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