cwp_ftp_update_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, whether omitted parameters leave existing values unchanged, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words. However, brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and usage context, so it is efficient but not maximally helpful.

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 annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the agent lacks critical information for safe invocation. The tool mutates FTP permissions but the description doesn't explain side effects, authorization requirements, or how omitted optional parameters are handled. Significant gaps remain for a mutation tool with four parameters.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the schema ('New FTP root path', 'New quota in MB', etc.). The description adds only the parenthetical '(path or quota)' which broadly matches the schema's optional parameters but provides no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb (update) and resource (FTP account permissions) with a parenthetical listing the two updatable aspects (path or quota). This is clearer than a tautology but lacks sibling differentiation — it doesn't distinguish itself from cwp_ftp_create or cwp_account_update. An agent familiar with the naming convention can infer purpose, but the description itself provides only minimal clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions (account must exist), nor does it clarify when to choose this over cwp_ftp_create or cwp_account_update. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.

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