update_sftp_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unmentioned fields, authentication/permission requirements, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and efficient, though it also under-specifies the operation's scope.

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?

Given the 7-parameter mutation tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are preserved), error handling, or response format, leaving critical context missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents each field. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies. The optionality of fields is derivable from the schema's required list.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('SFTP connection'), indicating it modifies an existing connection. It implies the distinction from creation via 'existing', but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like create_sftp_connection or delete_sftp_connection.

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 create_sftp_connection, delete_sftp_connection, or test_sftp_connection. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflows, or cases where an update would be preferred.

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