webdav_create_remote_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., write access), whether it overwrites existing directories, error handling (e.g., if path already exists), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'path' parameter. It doesn't explain what the path represents (e.g., absolute or relative), format expectations, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new directory on a remote WebDAV server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'webdav_create_remote_file' (creates files) and 'webdav_get_directory_tree' (reads directories). However, it doesn't specify if it's a single directory or can create nested paths, which would make it fully specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if it should be used for initial setup versus adding subdirectories, or how it differs from 'webdav_move_remote_item' for reorganizing directories. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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