panelica_ftp_patch_v1_ftp_accounts_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds 'Required scopes: ftp:write' and 'Mutating: changes server state,' which provide some auth and side-effect context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe effects on the account, reversibility, failure behavior, or what the response contains. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose line comes first, followed by a clean labeled block (HTTP, Category, Required scopes, Mutating). Every line earns its place. Only minor waste is the 'Category: FTP' line, which is redundant with the tool name.

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 mutating endpoint with an opaque, open-world request body and no output schema, this description is insufficient for safe correct invocation. It does not disclose what fields may be updated, the expected response, or any constraints on the body. The 'see API docs' reference externalizes the critical information an agent needs.

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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the body parameter's description is a cop-out: 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs' with additionalProperties: true. The tool description adds nothing about what fields a PATCH body should contain (e.g., directory, quota, comment). Since the body is the entire point of an update call, an agent cannot construct a meaningful request from the provided information.

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+resource ('Update FTP account') reinforced by the HTTP method and path (PATCH /v1/ftp-accounts/:id). This distinguishes it from sibling FTP tools like GET (fetch), POST (create), DELETE (remove), and the dedicated change_password/suspend endpoints. The only gap is that it doesn't specify which account attributes can be updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling FTP endpoints (POST to create, DELETE to remove, POST .../change_password to rotate credentials). The description never states that PATCH is for modifying an existing account's settings, nor does it give any condition or alternative. An agent must infer usage entirely from the method name and path.

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