android_file_mkdir

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

Annotations already convey mutation and non-idempotence (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds an operational auth prerequisite: the target must be a writable authorized SAF root. It does not describe edge cases like existing directories, but the annotation set lowers the bar.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the meaning is immediately clear.

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 mkdir tool, this is mostly sufficient, but the absence of path semantics and failure behavior leaves minor gaps. The lack of an output schema is not a major issue for a creation command, so the tool remains usable.

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. It weakly maps rootId to the SAF root and path to the directory to create, but it does not clarify path format, relative vs absolute resolution, or whether intermediate parents are created.

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 specific action, 'Create a directory', and a precise location, 'inside a writable authorized SAF root'. This clearly distinguishes it from file-focused siblings like android_file_write, android_file_delete, and android_file_list.

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 context is clear: use this tool when a new directory is needed under a writable authorized SAF root. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is specific enough that an agent can route to it without confusion.

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