panelica_ftp_patch_v1_ftp_accounts_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'updates an FTP account' but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the update is partial (PATCH), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The HTTP method is mentioned but not explained.

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 very short (two sentences), but it includes redundant information: the HTTP method and category are already inferrable from the tool name. While concise, it sacrifices useful detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic function. However, it lacks details on what can be updated, which a more complete description would include. Considering the low complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Only one parameter, 'id', is required, and the schema describes it as 'Path parameter: id'. The description does not add any extra meaning, such as what the ID represents. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 'UpdateFTPAccount updates an FTP account', clearly indicating the verb (update) and resource (FTP account). It distinguishes from sibling FTP tools (delete, get, change password, suspend, unsuspend) by the update action. However, it does not specify which properties can be updated, slightly reducing 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to patch vs. use other FTP tools like change password or suspend. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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