ftp_mkdir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the non-obvious fact that parent directories are created recursively, which is valuable. However, it does not mention behavior when the directory already exists, permission requirements, or success/error feedback.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. The parenthetical note adds key behavior without padding.

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?

For a simple mkdir tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It is adequate for basic usage, though it could benefit from noting error conditions or return values.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, describing it as 'Remote path on the FTP server'. The description adds little beyond implying nested paths are acceptable, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a directory') and resource ('FTP server'), and includes a distinctive behavior (creates parent directories). This differentiates it from siblings like ftp_rmdir and ftp_upload.

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 intended use is obvious from the description—use this when you need to create a remote directory. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no competing mkdir sibling exists.

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