ftp_change_password

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write scoped to the account. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether existing FTP sessions are invalidated, whether the change is immediately effective, or what happens on failure.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose is the first phrase, followed by a compact Args block. Nothing is wasted, though the boilerplate 'Args:' formatting adds little for an already self-evident parameter list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the operation is low-complexity with only two required params. Still, for a credential-mutating tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the meaning/preconditions of 'suffix' beyond a restatement and any note about effect on active sessions or required permissions.

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%, so the description carries the full param burden; it partially compensates by clarifying that 'suffix' means the FTP login suffix and 'password' is the new password. That resolves the main ambiguity, but there is no format, length, or character-set guidance and no explanation of how to obtain the correct suffix.

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 ('Сменить пароль FTP-аккаунта' – change FTP account password), which is unambiguous and unique among the siblings (ftp_add, ftp_delete, ftp_list all do different things). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or point to related tools.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as 'the FTP account must already exist' or 'use ftp_add first to create one'. The name/description implies the intent, but usage is left entirely to inference.

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