ftp_copy

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a key trait: the copy is performed by downloading then re-uploading, indicating it is not a server-side copy and involves local bandwidth. However, it does not disclose whether an existing destination file is overwritten or other side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 that states the action and adds crucial mechanism context in a parenthetical. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with three well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context: the purpose and the download/re-upload mechanism. It lacks explicit mention of overwrite behavior and return values, but given the low complexity and no output schema, the description is largely complete.

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 fully documents all three parameters (connection, sourcePath, destPath) with clear descriptions, and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly specifies the verb 'Copy' and resource 'a remote file', and the parenthetical '(downloads then re-uploads to new location)' distinguishes it from server-side copy operations and from siblings like ftp_move or ftp_rename. This is a specific and unambiguous action.

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 the tool is for copying a remote file to another remote location, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like ftp_move (if you want to move) or ftp_download/ftp_upload (for local transfers). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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