ftp_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states the tool mutates state by revoking a hash and that subsequent put/get calls with that hash fail, which is meaningful side-effect information. It does not discuss reversibility or failure modes, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two short sentences with action and scope front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of obvious schema details.

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?

The description is adequate for the core action and its effect, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. However, with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics and the lack of alternative/usage routing keep it from being fully self-contained.

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%, and the description only indirectly refers to access_hash as 'hash'. The required admin_password and the optional agent_id are not explained at all. Because the schema provides no descriptions and the tool description does not compensate, parameter semantics are weak.

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 names a concrete action ('revoga um hash cadastrado') and a specific resource, and it adds the observable consequence that put/get operations fail afterward. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as ftp_register and ftp_hashes.

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 'Admin:' prefix conveys an authorization context, and the effect on put/get implies this is for invalidating an existing hash. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ftp_register or ftp_hashes, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond admin status.

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