change_ftp_quota

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Change' without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the FTP account must exist), permission requirements, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. 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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with a fully described schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, the absence of annotations and lack of behavioral details (e.g., effect on existing accounts, return value) prevent a perfect score. Still, the core purpose is complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (user, quota, domain) with descriptive text, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Change' and clearly identifies the resource ('an FTP account's disk quota'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'change_ftp_password' or 'change_email_quota'. The intent is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for modifying an FTP account's disk quota. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource specificity makes the usage context obvious, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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