Enable Ftp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits whether the change takes effect immediately, whether enabling FTP requires a restart or exposes a security risk, and what happens to existing sessions. For a network-service mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 short phrase that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and usage content.

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?

Complexity is low (2 params, one required, output schema present so return values need no explanation) and the schema is fully documented. However, the absence of annotations means the description should have covered the effect and safety of toggling a network service, which it does not.

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 100%, so both 'port' (default 21) and 'enabled' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (FTP service) and the action pair (enable/disable), which is clearer than the name 'enable_ftp' alone and disambiguates it from list/get siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-identical toggle siblings (enable_ssh, enable_telnet), but the resource name makes separation obvious.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the sibling enable_ssh/enable_telnet toggles. The agent must infer all call conditions from the parameter name.

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