panelica_ftp_post_v1_ftp_accounts

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false, the description explicitly states 'Mutating: changes server state' and 'Required scopes: ftp:write', which are useful auth and side-effect disclosures. It does not contradict any annotation.

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: one-line purpose, then HTTP method, category, scope, and mutation flag. Every line carries distinct information with no filler.

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 creating operation with no output schema and an undeclared body, the description lacks the essential information needed to invoke the tool (body fields) and what success returns. It is too sparse to be self-sufficient.

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?

The sole parameter is a free-form body whose schema description only says 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs,' and the tool description adds no required fields, examples, or formatting hints. An agent cannot confidently construct a valid create-FTP-account request from this definition.

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 opens with 'Create FTP account' and specifies the HTTP POST /v1/ftp-accounts endpoint, making the action and target resource unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from the many FTP sibling tools for listing, patching, suspending, or deleting accounts.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Although the POST endpoint and name imply creation, the description does not explain how it relates to ftp_patch, change_password, suspend, or other sibling tools.

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