combell_linux_hostings_set_ftp

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the operation: no mention of whether disabling FTP affects existing FTP accounts, whether the change applies immediately, or whether re-enabling restores prior state. It adds essentially nothing beyond what the name and annotations already convey.

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 10-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Enable or disable FTP access') and then scopes it ('on a Linux hosting'). Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no nesting) and annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so a short description is defensible. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to infer the meaning of domain_name and any effects of toggling FTP, so the definition is adequate but not fully self-sufficient. No output schema exists, and the description does not address return behavior.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It does implicitly map 'enable or disable' to the `enabled` boolean, which is helpful, but it adds nothing about `domain_name` (format, ownership, or how to obtain valid values) beyond its schema name. Coverage is only partial for the boolean and absent for the domain parameter.

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 (enable/disable), a specific resource (FTP access), and a scope (Linux hosting). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling set_* tools on Linux hostings (set_gzip, set_http2, set_php_version, etc.) by naming the exact feature being toggled, and from combell_ssh_set_enabled by naming the protocol.

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. It does not name the other linux_hostings set_* tools it complements, state prerequisites (e.g., that the domain must correspond to an existing Linux hosting), or explain when FTP toggling is appropriate versus other access controls like SSH. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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