cwp_ftp_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says a new FTP account is created, without stating whether it requires administrator privileges, whether it fails if the username exists, or whether the password must be stored or transmitted securely.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 mutation tool with five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description omits essential context such as permission requirements, error behavior, and whether the account replaces an existing one. It is not sufficient on its own.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions (path, user, quota, password, username) already provide full semantic detail. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (FTP account) with the target user, distinguishing it from siblings like cwp_ftp_list and cwp_ftp_delete. It is clear but does not differentiate further within the FTP family or mention nuances like overwriting an existing account.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus cwp_ftp_list, cwp_ftp_delete, or cwp_ftp_update_permissions. There are no prerequisites or warnings about creating a duplicate account.

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