ftp_chmod

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'change' (implying mutation) and covers files/directories, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or recursive behavior. The schema's 'recursive' parameter is not referenced in the description, leaving a transparency 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?

The description is a single sentence, fully front-loaded with the action and target, and contains no filler or redundancy. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for a simple permission-changing tool.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't mention the required connection, the effect on existing permissions, or any return behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks sufficient usage context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in real scenarios.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the example '755, 644' which is already in the mode parameter's schema description, thus providing no additional value beyond the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Change') and the target ('file or directory permissions'), with concrete examples ('755, 644'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ftp_chown or ftp_stat, though the focus on permissions makes the purpose fairly 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It simply restates the basic function; the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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