ftp_upload

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

The description only states the basic upload action and does not disclose whether it overwrites existing remote files, requires an active FTP session, or creates remote directories. With no annotations, this leaves important behavioral traits 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, front-loaded sentence of ten words with no filler, efficiently stating the core action.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but it omits critical context like the need for an existing FTP connection and the tool's behavior relative to sibling ftp_write. This constitutes a clear gap in an otherwise minimal viable description.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions of localPath and remotePath. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies entirely on the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'upload' with a clear source ('local filesystem') and destination ('FTP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ftp_download or ftp_write.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like ftp_write or ftp_put, nor any prerequisites such as establishing a connection via ftp_connect.

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