Create directory

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the side effect ('Mutates NAS state'), a failure condition ('Fails if a directory of that name already exists'), and the return value ('Returns the created {name, path}'). This fully discloses the tool's behavior beyond the schema.

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 five sentences long, each earning its place: purpose, use case, parameter nuance, failure/return, and relationship to siblings. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, failure, return, and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, especially given the output schema already documents the return shape.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions and examples (100% coverage). The description adds critical nuance for 'name' by clarifying it is a 'bare basename, not a path,' which is not explicit in the schema. This extra semantic guidance raises it above the baseline of 3 for high 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 opens with a clear verb-resource statement: 'Create a new directory on the ZSpace NAS under the given parent.' It precisely identifies the operation and the target namespace, and differentiates from siblings by implying it is a preparatory action rather than a move/copy/delete. The scope is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use to prepare a destination before moving files into it.' It also states when to use it relative to zspace_move and zspace_copy, which require the destination to already exist. This tells an agent exactly when to call this tool and when not to.

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