ftp_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description only restates that by saying 'убрать аккаунт' and adds nothing about whether hosted files are also removed, whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required — no value beyond the annotations.

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 and resource, followed by a compact Args block; there is no filler. It is perhaps over-terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is wasted.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a destructive single-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the definition omits the account identifier format and the blast radius of the deletion, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 must carry the parameter load. 'Суффикс логина FTP' does explain what the bare 'suffix' field means, which is genuine compensation, but it is thin — it does not clarify the suffix relative to the full account name or give an example format.

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 ('Убрать FTP-аккаунт' / remove an FTP account), which is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from siblings like ftp_add, ftp_list and ftp_change_password. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the teardown counterpart to ftp_add.

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