create_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value by disclosing the confirm=true confirmation gate and the root-relative path convention. It does not say what happens if the directory already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, or how the confirm_token fits into the safety flow.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource, the path convention, an example, and the confirmation requirement front-loaded in that order. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a three-parameter mutation tool with a confirm/confirm_token safety flow the description should clarify the token's origin and behaviour on pre-existing paths. It is adequate to attempt a call, not complete enough to handle the full interaction.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for 'path' (root-inclusive format plus example) and touches 'confirm', but 'confirm_token' — a third of the parameters — is never explained, leaving a real semantic gap.

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 directory on the printer') and gives a concrete path example ('gcodes/projects'), so the agent knows exactly what will be created. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like delete_directory or list_directory, but the verb makes the distinction self-evident.

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 says 'Requires confirm=true', which gives a hard prerequisite for invoking the tool, but it offers no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance and never mentions confirm_token or when that additional step applies. Usage is implied rather than framed.

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