o2_mkdir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds the useful precondition that the parent must exist, but says nothing about error behavior, recursion, or whether an existing folder causes failure.

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 short clauses, purpose front-loaded and the precondition following it. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter create operation with no output schema and safety hints in annotations, purpose plus the parent precondition cover the essentials. Missing parameter format and failure/return behavior keep it from being complete.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at path hierarchy via the parent-precondition and never documents path format (absolute vs relative) or whether the target folder is created relative to a root.

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 ('Crea una carpeta'), so the agent immediately knows this creates a directory. It does not differentiate from its sibling cloud_mkdir, which performs the same action on a different backend; the o2_ prefix is the only signal.

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 clause 'su padre debe existir' is an implicit precondition that tells the agent when the call will succeed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cloud_mkdir or how to handle the missing-parent case.

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