ftp_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key precondition that the file must exist, but does not state what happens if the file is missing, permission requirements, or whether a newline is added. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the core action.

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 declarative sentence of 8 words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'append' and directly states the object. No filler, redundant info, or unnecessary details.

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?

Given the low complexity and fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable but thin. It does not describe error scenarios or help differentiate from similar write tools (e.g., ftp_write). The 'existing' qualifier adds some context, but overall it lacks depth for completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (path, content, connection). The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 clearly states the action ('Append') and the resource ('content to an existing remote file'). This distinguishes it from siblings like ftp_write (overwrite) and ftp_upload (transfer local file). The qualifier 'existing' adds an important scope condition, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies a use case (adding content to a file that already exists) but does not contrast with ftp_write or mention prerequisites beyond the file's existence. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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