ensure_folder_path

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it creates missing levels, returns the leaf folder, and restricts top-level folders. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but for a simple tool it is fairly transparent.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and provide essential context. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and constraints. It could mention possible errors or the exact return format, but it is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema describes 'path' as 'slash-separated folder path' (100% coverage). The description adds context by listing valid top-level folders and examples, which helps the agent understand constraints 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?

Description clearly states the tool ensures a nested folder path exists and creates missing levels. It specifies the resource (folder path) and action (ensure existence), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_folder that likely create a single folder.

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 implies usage when a full path needs to exist, and it specifies allowed top-level folders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_folder, leaving the agent to infer.

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