ftp_deploy

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

No annotations are provided so the description carries full burden. It mentions execution of a preset which involves file transfer, but does not disclose whether action is destructive (overwrites), requires a connection, or details error handling. Minimal transparency beyond basic operation.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states action, second adds context. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what, how (via .ftpconfig), and typical usage. Lacks details on return values or failure modes, but not critical for a straightforward command.

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% for the single parameter 'deployment'. Description adds value by specifying it is a preset name from .ftpconfig and providing examples ('web-app', 'api-server'), which goes beyond the schema description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: executing a pre-defined deployment preset from .ftpconfig. It further explains the mapping of a local folder to a remote target with exclusion rules, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftp_upload or ftp_sync.

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 implies usage for predefined deployment presets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ftp_upload or ftp_sync. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned meaning the agent lacks clear decision guidance.

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