create_directory_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that parent folders are created, that the write is an atomic replace with no backup, and explicitly that it does not prepare metadata, validate, or upload. It also warns that a running matching watcher may upload the file and clarifies that sync selects the target section rather than invoking Code Sync.

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?

Although long, it is tightly organized into labeled Inputs/Effects/Returns segments with the routing guidance front-loaded, and every sentence carries decision-relevant information (side effects, non-behaviors, follow-up tools).

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 not be restated, yet the description still summarizes the return shape; combined with the effects, exclusions, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate and does: each of the four parameters is given meaning beyond its type — directory as project root path, file_name as a relative .lua path, code as complete Lua source, and sync as a selector between scripts/ and drafts/ with a stated default plus the prefix-tolerance rule.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Save supplied Lua code under a user-selected project directory') and immediately distinguishes this from the two sibling creators by scoping it to a user-supplied local path. An agent can route between create_directory_script, create_project_script, and create_script 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?

Explicit 'Preferred when the user supplies a local directory path' plus named alternatives for the other two cases ('Use create_project_script for a named MCP-managed project or create_script for the MCP root's scripts/'). It also prescribes the follow-on workflow: validate with validate_directory_script, then preview_directory_sync and connect_sync or sync_directory.

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