ftp_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is an admin-only creation action requiring the admin password and that the resulting hash is used by clients. However, it does not explain side effects, whether hashes can be revoked, how permissions in the schema affect behavior, or what the response contains.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the admin requirement and states the core purpose without wasted words. Every clause adds relevant 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?

This is an 8-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions, no annotations, and a very terse description. The description does not explain most parameters, required inputs beyond admin_password, return format, or interaction with revocation/list tools, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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, but it only hints at 'hash' and 'put/get'. The fields label, secret, agent_id, ttl_seconds, can_get, and can_put are left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and constraints.

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 that the tool registers an access_hash, names the admin-only audience, and explains that clients will use the generated hash for put/get operations. This distinguishes it from siblings like ftp_revoke and ftp_hashes even without comparing schemas.

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 gives clear context: only admins should call it, and an admin password is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the admin-scoped purpose and the put/get usage are enough to guide selection.

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