Update FTP user

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

The note 'Params unverified' hints that parameters may not be validated before execution, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, the description fails to disclose other important aspects like side effects, auth requirements, or whether the update is destructive.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Every part (the action and the note 'Params unverified') adds some value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or any prerequisite conditions, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is only 25% (only ftp_login has a description), and the description does not add meaning for the other parameters (ftp_path, ftp_comment, ftp_password). It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Update an FTP user' which identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like ftp_add and ftp_delete. However, it could be more specific about which fields 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftp_add or ftp_delete. No context on prerequisites or conditions for use.

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