ftp_put

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 does add non-obvious behaviors: it requires a registered access hash, writes SHA-256, checks disk space, and extracts metadata. However, it omits key behavioral details for an upload/write tool, such as whether existing files are overwritten, how content vs content_base64 is handled, or what happens on failure.

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 extremely concise: three short clauses with no filler. The primary action 'Envia arquivo' is front-loaded, and each additional clause adds distinct information about prerequisites or side effects.

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?

Given 9 parameters, zero annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is not complete enough to reliably invoke the tool. It lacks guidance on how to provide file content, when to use content versus content_base64, overwrite semantics, and the meaning of visibility/agent_id/message. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 9 parameters. It mentions access_hash and implies SHA-256 relates to expected_hash, but it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of content, content_base64, mime, visibility, message, agent_id, or path. The description adds only minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Envia arquivo' (sends file), which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It also adds a meaningful distinction via the access_hash requirement and SHA-256/disk-check behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ftp_get or doc_put.

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 states a clear prerequisite: a registered access_hash from ftp_register is required. However, it does not explain when to prefer ftp_put over alternatives, nor does it describe exclusions or fallback conditions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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