Create a single directory in a read-write workspace, given an existing parent path. Returns a change_id for reversible cleanup if the directory remains empty and unmodified.
Create one absent directory in an rw space; parent must exist. Returns a change_id; restore removes it only if empty and unchanged. Cannot modify the workspace root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| workspace | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2-demo.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the operation returns a change_id, restore removes it only if empty and unchanged, and it cannot modify the workspace root. This goes beyond the annotations and warns about potential side effects (removal on restore) and limitations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds critical constraints and side-effects. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 complete for the core operation, but it lacks parameter-level detail and doesn't state what the output (change_id) is used for beyond restoration. Given it's a mutating tool with a destructive hint, it could benefit from a note on error conditions (e.g., what if the directory already exists) or how to use the change_id. However, the output schema is absent, so the description carries that burden partially. Overall, adequate but with room for improvement.
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 does not explain any of the three parameters: 'path', 'workspace', 'request_id'. The description mentions 'rw space' which hints at 'workspace', but it doesn't clarify the format or purpose of 'request_id' or the expected structure of 'path'. This is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions.
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 the action ('Create one absent directory') and the resource ('in an rw space'). It adds the constraint that the directory must be absent and the parent must exist, which goes beyond a generic definition. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'copy_file' or 'move_file', though the resource is distinct enough.
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 when to use this tool: to create a directory that does not exist, with an existing parent. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the conditions are fairly clear (e.g., for creating files, one would use 'write_file' or 'apply_text_patch'). The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.