ftp_patch_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'atomic-like updates' but does not detail failure behavior, security requirements, or race condition handling (despite expectedHash parameter). Lacks depth in behavioral disclosure.

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 with no waste. Core action, recommendation, and alternative are front-loaded. Highly concise and structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and key recommendation. It omits error behavior and prerequisites, but these are less critical given tool simplicity and sibling context.

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 baseline 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; it mentions 'Unified Diff formatted string' but that repeats the schema. No enrichment of parameter semantics.

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 ('Apply a Unified Diff patch') and resource ('remote file'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool ftp_put_contents by stating when to use each for updating vs. new files.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('for updating existing files') and when to use the alternative ('For new files, use ftp_put_contents'), and highlights benefits (minimize bandwidth, atomic-like updates).

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