add_ftp_request

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parent relationship, with no mention of upload versus download behavior, anonymous login defaults, side effects, or validation. An agent gets almost no behavioral guarantees beyond the tool name.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the core action and placement, though the brevity veers into under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot safely construct a valid FTP request or understand the relationship between remote filename, local file path, and upload flag from this description alone.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain server, filename, upload, inputData, localFilename, binaryMode, or any other field, so the agent must guess at how these parameters interact.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add an FTP Request sampler under the given parent.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling add_* tools by naming the exact sampler type and its intended placement context.

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?

The description implies placement under a parent like a Thread Group, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this sampler over alternatives such as add_http_sampler, add_tcp_sampler, or add_jdbc_request. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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