Create a directory on a device

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's main added value is the remote $HOME scoping. It says nothing about behavior when the directory already exists, whether intermediate parent directories are created, or what permissions are needed — relevant gaps for a create operation.

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; the scoping constraint follows the verb immediately. Nothing is redundant or 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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output-free contract, and annotations covering safety, most of what an agent needs is present. However, the create semantics that matter most — existing-directory behavior and recursive parent creation — are left unspecified.

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% and both parameters are fully documented, including the $HOME-relative meaning of path. The description only restates that same relative-path constraint, adding no new syntax or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') plus scope ('on the remote device relative to $HOME'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like pi_file_write, pi_path_rename, and pi_path_delete. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the verb/resource pair is unambiguous enough to separate it.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb and the $HOME-relative constraint; there is no statement of when to use this versus pi_path_rename or pi_file_write, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer intent, but nothing routes it explicitly.

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