ftp_mkdir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic operation ('Create a remote directory') and does not disclose behavior such as whether existing directories cause an error, whether permissions are required, or whether the recursive parameter is the only way to create parent directories. This leaves the agent to guess about side effects and error conditions.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The schema is rich (100% parameter coverage) and the tool is relatively simple, so the description need not explain return values or all parameter details. However, it lacks contextual completeness regarding when to use the tool and potential side effects, which are not covered by the schema. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%: each parameter (path, recursive, connection) has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The recursive parameter's semantics ('Create parent directories if needed') are already captured in the schema, and the description does not reinforce or enrich this.

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 'Create a remote directory' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('remote directory'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ftp_rmdir (remove) and ftp_upload_directory (upload contents), which also interact with directories but for different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ftp_upload_directory (which may implicitly create directories) or ftp_mkdir's recursive option. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active connection) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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