Create folder

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the MKCOL mechanism, the ancestor-creation semantics of parents, and the explicit refusal condition when a path segment exists as a file. It stops short of describing errors for other cases (permissions, existing folder) or return behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the operation and protocol, followed by the flag behavior and the failure mode. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the operation, flag semantics, and the main failure mode, which is enough to call it correctly. Only sibling routing and non-refusal error behavior are left unstated, a minor gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description restates the parents semantics already present in the schema and adds only the default-false emphasis, offering marginal extra meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a folder") and even names the underlying protocol operation (WebDAV MKCOL), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like write_file, which could also implicitly create a directory path, so an agent gets clarity about the operation but not about sibling routing.

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 explains how to use the parents flag and when the call will fail (path segment already a file), which is implied usage guidance. It never states when to prefer mkdir over write_file or list_directory, and offers no prerequisites or confirmation of ordering relative to other operations.

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