update_ftp_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not state whether changes are partial, whether the password is reset, what happens to omitted optional fields, or what permissions are required.

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 a three-word fragment. It is not bloated, but its brevity is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness, leaving all critical detail absent.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, one required, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent lacks nearly all information needed to call it 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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain the required id, nor the optional path, password, or description fields.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update FTP user'. It is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete/list siblings by the verb, but does not indicate which FTP user attributes can be updated or differentiate from sibling update 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. The description gives no context about when an agent should choose update_ftp_user over create_ftp_user, delete_ftp_user, or operate_ftp.

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