ssh_mkdir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the -p (recursive parents) behavior, which is the main behavioral trait. However, it does not mention failure modes (what happens if the directory already exists, permission denied, target unreachable) or that this is a mutating 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?

One concise sentence that fully describes the purpose and behavior. Zero wasted words; the mkdir -p analogy is highly informative per word.

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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and the mkdir -p analogy, the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens on existing directories or permission failures, but the simplicity of the operation and full schema coverage keep this at a solid level.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents target and path semantics. The description adds the mkdir -p nuance but does not elaborate on target's port syntax or path constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('Create a directory (and parents) on the remote host') with a helpful comparison to `mkdir -p`. It is distinct from siblings, though it could be even more explicit about the remote+filesystem context that differentiates it from utilities like ssh_scp_to or ssh_write_file.

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 implicitly conveys when to use it (creating directories remotely) by mentioning 'equivalent to mkdir -p' which signals recursive parent creation. However, there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives named, nor prerequisites (e.g., that the SSH target must be reachable, or that parent permissions may be required).

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