server_file_mkdir

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behaviors: parent directories are created recursively, and the call is gated behind confirm=true, which signals a mutating operation. It says nothing about idempotency (what happens if the folder already exists), error behavior, or what permissions are needed, leaving substantial gaps for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope stated before the confirmation requirement. Nothing is padded and nothing repetitive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the tool is a mutation on a remote host with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions. An agent still cannot tell whether the call is idempotent, whether it fails on an existing folder, or what 'as_root' and 'host' change about execution — the description should have filled at least some of that.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It covers only 'confirm' (explicitly required true), while 'path', 'host', and especially 'as_root' — a privilege-escalation flag with real consequences — are entirely unexplained. The 'on the Docker host' phrasing hints at host targeting but never clarifies what the host parameter accepts.

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 ('Make') and resource ('a folder') plus the scope ('on the Docker host') and the recursive behavior (missing parent folders created). This clearly separates it from the file-oriented siblings like server_file_write or server_file_list, which operate on files rather than directories.

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 supplies one concrete precondition — 'Needs confirm=true' — which is genuinely actionable. However, it offers no when-to-use framing or exclusions, e.g. whether server_file_write already creates parents, or when to prefer this over writing a file at that path. Usage is implied, not guided.

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