finder_create_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that only a 'single' directory is created (implying non-recursive behavior) and notes 'permissions: none', but omits approval triggers, overwrite behavior for existing paths, and error semantics that matter for a write tool.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The bracketed version/permission tag '[v1.0.0; permissions: none]' is metadata clutter of limited value, but the description remains short and readable.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values need not be described. However, for a write operation whose schema exposes an _approvalId gate, the description leaves the approval path and failure modes unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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%, so all three parameters including _idempotencyKey and _approvalId are documented in the schema itself. With no params needing description compensation and the description aligning with the schema's 'authorized roots' wording, the baseline is met and slightly exceeded by reinforcing the root constraint.

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 single directory') and constrains scope with 'within an authorized root'. This distinguishes it from the other finder mutation siblings like finder_write_file and finder_move_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'within an authorized root' implies a precondition, and the schema's _approvalId parameter hints at an approval workflow, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when an approval ID is required. Usage is only inferable.

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