Remote Upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the path-confinement constraint (a useful security trait), but says nothing about whether an existing remote file is overwritten, what permissions/auth are required, or what happens when remote_relative_path is omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping constraint is stated up front. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-liner leaves too much unstated: default behavior of the optional remote path, overwrite semantics, and required auth are all missing.

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 and largely does not. It implies path-like inputs and project scoping but never explains what project_id, local_relative_path, or the optional remote_relative_path (default null) mean or how the null default is resolved.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (a file), plus the scoping constraint that both paths are confined to registered project roots. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ssh_upload, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from purpose alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With ssh_upload and remote_apply_patch as siblings, the description never says when this tool is the right choice versus those alternatives, nor any prerequisites for the project being registered.

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