ftp_upload_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the protocol (FTPS) and port (990), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements beyond the password parameter, error handling, file size limits, or what happens on successful/failed uploads. For a file transfer tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose with key details (file types, destination, protocol). The second provides essential usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 file upload tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details about authentication flow, error conditions, or response format. The 100% schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions file types (.gcode, .3mf, .stl) which relates to local_path but doesn't provide format validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Upload'), resource ('.gcode, .3mf, or .stl file'), and destination ('to the printer SD card via FTPS (port 990)'). It distinguishes from sibling 'printer_print_file' by specifying that tool is for starting prints after upload, establishing a clear workflow relationship.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use printer_print_file to start the print after upload,' naming the alternative tool and specifying the sequential relationship. This gives clear context for when this tool should be used versus its sibling.

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