Create file or folder

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the pre-existence failure mode, which explains why idempotentHint is false. It stops short of saying what happens if the parent folder is missing, whether folder creation is recursive, or how the failure is reported.

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 core sentence and the sibling redirect come first, with examples placed after as optional illustration. Slight redundancy: the examples largely re-encode what the schema descriptions already say, so they consume space without adding much new signal.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover mutation safety, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the collision-failure rule. Minor gaps remain around parent-directory behavior and error surfacing, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100% and both parameters are documented, including the required site-folder path format and the boolean meaning of is_folder. The description's examples restate essentially the same information (folder vs. empty file) rather than adding new semantics such as path normalization or trailing-slash behavior.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a new empty file or a new folder on your Nekoweb site') and immediately delimits scope with 'empty', which is what separates it from the write_file sibling. An agent can distinguish it from nekoweb_write_file and nekoweb_upload_file without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To create a file with content in one step, use nekoweb_write_file instead.' It also gives a when-not condition ('Fails if something already exists at that path') and two worked examples mapping natural language to arguments.

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