sftp_criar_pasta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: it can be blocked by the profile's raizes_escrita write roots. It does not say whether the operation is idempotent when the folder already exists or what error surfaces on a permission denial.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the flag's behavior. No filler. The phrase 'se o perfil tiver' is slightly clipped, but nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations-related gaps, most of what an agent needs is present. The remaining gap is outcome behavior: what it returns, and whether creating an existing folder fails, succeeds silently, or is treated as an error.

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 carries the full burden and partly meets it. criar_pais is explained ('cria as pastas intermediarias que faltarem'), and perfil is loosely characterized as the source of raizes_escrita. caminho remains undefined in both schema and description, so path format details are left to the caller's inference.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Cria uma pasta no servidor'. That distinguishes it from the other mutating sibling at this level, sftp_enviar (file upload) and sftp_renomear (rename), without naming them explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous even though there is no explicit sibling routing.

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?

Usage constraints are implied but not spelled out: it does not say whether to check existence with sftp_listar first, what happens if the directory already exists, or when the caller should prefer creating parent directories in a separate step. The only real guidance given is that raizes_escrita is honored if the profile defines it.

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