cloud_mkdir

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if the folder already exists (relevant given idempotentHint=false), what permissions/auth the connected account needs, or whether parent paths are auto-created.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition does not compensate: parameter semantics, failure modes, and sibling routing are all missing. An agent would have to guess at volume/path semantics before calling it.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters (volume, path) are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions neither, so the agent gets no meaning for "volume" (which drive/account?) or the expected path syntax — a real gap since both are required.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Crea una carpeta") scoped to a connected account, so the agent knows it is a create-folder operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling o2_mkdir, leaving ambiguity about which backend to target.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and with an obvious alternative (o2_mkdir) plus related tools like cloud_move/cloud_copy, the agent gets no routing rule. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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