ftp_mkdir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool creates a directory but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, permission requirements, whether parent directories are created, or any side effects.

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 short sentence with no filler words, making it easy to parse. However, it is concise to the point of being terse and vague in places.

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?

This is a mutation tool with three parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides only the minimal verb+object statement. It lacks operational context such as required setup, failure modes, and relationship to the FTP registration workflow, even though an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints that access_hash relates to a 'hash cadastrado' and does not clarify path format, path interpretation, or how to obtain access_hash.

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 states a clear action ('Cria diretório') and resource ('diretório neste hash cadastrado'), matching the tool name ftp_mkdir. It is distinguishable from siblings like ftp_put or ftp_rm, though 'hash cadastrado' is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no mention of what 'hash cadastrado' means operationally. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the brief description.

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