panelica_ftp_post_v1_ftp_accounts_id_unsuspend

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

The description adds the required scope (ftp:write), which is genuinely beyond what annotations provide. The 'Mutating: changes server state' line is consistent with readOnlyHint=false but largely restates it in plain language. It does not disclose side effects such as whether suspending/unsuspending affects active sessions or other server state, though annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Four short lines, each earning its place: the action, the HTTP route, the category, the auth scope, and the mutation warning. The key verb and resource are front-loaded before the metadata, with zero filler or repetition.

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 mutation action, the essential call information is present: route, required id parameter, required scope, and mutation flag. The body schema is admittedly not statically declared, but the schema itself points to API docs, and a typical unsuspend call needs no meaningful body. The lack of an output schema is not compensated, but this is a minor gap for such an action.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning; the schema documents id as a path parameter and body as an open, undeclared object. The description does not compensate for the body being undocumented, but given the 100% coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Unsuspend FTP account') that unambiguously identifies the operation. It also provides the exact HTTP route (POST /v1/ftp-accounts/:id/unsuspend), which distinguishes it from siblings like suspend, change_password, and delete without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'unsuspend' — the agent can infer this is for reversing a suspension — and the 'Required scopes: ftp:write' line gives a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus the sibling suspend tool, nor any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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