ftp_rmdir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, without mentioning that this is a destructive operation, that a non-empty directory requires the 'recursive' flag, or any failure modes. The recursive parameter is completely absent from the description, leaving its effect unclear.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is not verbose and contains no filler, earning its place without unnecessary words.

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 operation is simple, the tool is destructive and has a recursive option with significant side effects. The description omits return values, failure modes, and necessary context like connection requirements. Given no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more detail to be fully useful.

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%: both 'path' and 'recursive' are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the semantics.

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 ('Remove') and the target ('a directory on FTP server'), making it distinct from sibling tools like ftp_delete (presumably for files) and ftp_mkdir (directory creation). The noun 'directory' is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active FTP connection) or whether the directory must be empty unless recursive is set. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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