flipper_mkdir

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that missing parent directories are created, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if path exists or device disconnects) 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, clear sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It could include a brief usage note (e.g., 'on the connected Flipper device') but is otherwise well-sized.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides the core functionality (creating directories with parents). It lacks return behavior or error states, but with no output schema and only two parameters, it is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (port is described, path is not). The tool description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's description for port, and leaves path undefined. This is adequate but does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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) and resource (directory), and includes the important detail of creating missing parents. It distinguishes itself from sibling file operations like flipper_write_file, flipper_delete, and flipper_list_dir.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., flipper_write_file for creating files, or flipper_list_dir to verify existence). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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