ftp_add

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a bounded write with no destructive side effects. The description adds the notable detail that the resulting login is derived from a suffix (i.e., a prefix is appended), but it does not disclose whether the password is returned, whether the account is immediately active, or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact three-line argument list with no filler. The 'password: Пароль FTP' line is near-tautological with the parameter name, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 three-parameter create tool with an output schema (return values need not be explained), the description covers the essentials but omits how the login is actually formed, whether the domain must pre-exist, and any failure/duplicate behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and property titles are bare ('Suffix', 'Homedir', 'Password'), so the description carries the full burden. It labels each parameter and, crucially, gives a concrete homedir example ('site.ru/public_html'), which meaningfully clarifies format beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Добавить FTP-аккаунт' (add an FTP account), which distinguishes it from siblings ftp_list, ftp_delete, and ftp_change_password. The follow-up 'Итоговый логин: login_suffix' hints at the login-composition behavior, though it names a parameter (login_suffix) that does not exist in the schema, introducing mild confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the FTP siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., the domain must exist first), and no mention of what happens if an account already exists. Usage is only implied by the name.

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