create_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool can create nested directories in one operation, which adds useful behavioral context beyond basic creation. However, it fails to disclose critical traits such as permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if path exists), or mutation effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies the file system.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Each sentence earns its place by stating the core action and providing key operational details (nested creation and path relativity), with zero wasted words.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and path handling but lacks details on permissions, error cases, or return values. While concise, it doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'path' parameter. The description adds minimal value by reiterating that the path is relative to the notes directory, which is already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without needing extra semantic details from the 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('directory in your notes'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'write_note'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar operations (e.g., 'create' vs. 'write' for files), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage for creating directories in notes, including nested ones, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'write_note' for files or 'list_directory' for checking existence). It mentions the path should be relative, which offers some context but lacks exclusions or clear alternatives.

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