Push a file to the device

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the safety restriction that the remote path must fall inside configured allowed roots, with default roots listed. It does not describe failure behavior when a path is rejected, but the added constraint is substantive.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the safety constraint second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description plus annotations plus fully-described parameters cover what an agent needs to invoke the tool: operation, direction, and path safety. It omits what happens on a disallowed path or a failed copy, a minor gap for a straightforward file-transfer tool.

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 all three parameters (device, local_path, remote_path) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the remote_path constraint with allowed-root detail, but this is supplemental rather than compensating for a gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Copy a file from the host machine to the device') and names the underlying adb operation, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling pull_file. 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?

The description gives a clear operating context (host-to-device copy) and a precondition on the remote path, which implies when the tool applies. It does not explicitly name pull_file as the reverse-direction alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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