e2b_make_dir

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

With no annotations provided and no schema annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure load, but it fails to explain what happens if the directory already exists, whether it's idempotent, or what happens in error cases. The only behavioral hint—'including parent directories'—hints at recursive creation but stops there.

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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler—the parenthetical adds real value. It's minimal and gets straight to the point.

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?

It's a simple operation, so the state space is small, but there's no mention of return type, error-handling contract, idempotency, or edge cases (e.g., invalid paths). The API contract is almost entirely missing.

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 `path` is central but completely undocumented, and `username` and `sandboxId` lack schema documentation; the description adds no additional context to distinguish them. With only 60% schema coverage and no parameter-level descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 is concise: it pairs a strong verb ('create') with a clear object ('directory in a sandbox') and includes the useful qualifier 'including parent directories,' which hints at `mkdir -p` semantics. It's clear and specific enough to avoid confusion with siblings like `e2b_list_dir` or `e2b_remove`.

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 included use case is clear and no guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives is given, nor are edge cases discussed. The mention of parent-directory creation is a behavioral hint, but the description doesn't explicitly guide tool selection beyond the obvious.

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