Rename or move a remote entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the path-relative-to-root context, but does not disclose what happens on failure, whether directories can be moved recursively, or whether overwriting is possible. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key scoping detail about paths. No wasted words.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with a full output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether moving directories is supported or whether overwrites are allowed, but these are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the shared context that paths are relative to the server root, which reinforces the schema but doesn't add new meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Rename or move') and resource ('remote file or directory'), and clarifies that paths are relative to the server root. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ftp_delete, ftp_upload, and ftp_download.

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 description implies usage for renaming or moving remote entries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftp_upload or ftp_mkdir. It provides context (both paths relative to server root) but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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