liara_create_ftp_access

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 states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions required, whether this action is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a creation tool.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with only 2 parameters and follows the principle of front-loading the essential information.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what FTP access creation entails, what credentials or endpoints are returned, or any behavioral implications. The agent would need to guess about the tool's effects and outputs based on minimal information.

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% description coverage with clear parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. No additional semantic context is provided about the parameters.

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 'Create FTP access for a disk' clearly states the action (create) and resource (FTP access for a disk), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'liara_delete_ftp_access' or explain what FTP access entails beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing disk), constraints, or comparison with related tools like 'liara_list_ftp_accesses' or 'liara_delete_ftp_access', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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