ftp_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing effects, but it only says 'write content' without stating whether it overwrites existing files, creates missing directories, or what response is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, especially given that ftp_append exists for appending, so the overwrite behavior is not explicit.

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 efficiently conveys the core operation without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and easy to scan.

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?

Although the tool has a simple interface with only three well-documented parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should clarify the operation's effect (e.g., overwrite vs. append) and the expected return value. The current text is insufficient for the agent to fully understand the behavior, especially with sibling tools like ftp_append.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds limited value. The phrase 'content directly' hints that content is a raw string rather than a file path, which is a minor supplement, but otherwise the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('write content') and the resource ('remote file'), which identifies the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ftp_append (which also writes content but appends) or ftp_upload (which transfers a local file), leaving some ambiguity about overwrite semantics.

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 ftp_write versus alternatives such as ftp_append or ftp_upload. It neither states the intended use case (e.g., writing raw string content) nor excludes other tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate choice from the sibling names.

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