ssh_mkdir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the `parents` parameter (behaving like mkdir -p) and the `host` parameter (defaults from config), but does not disclose what happens if the directory already exists, error conditions, or whether the operation is atomic.

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 concise, with two sentences total and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary information.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameters. It could mention the return value (if any) and error handling, but it is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: path as 'Directory path to create', parents as 'create parent directories as needed (mkdir -p)', and host as 'SSH host alias from config. Uses default if omitted.' This goes beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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: 'Create a directory on the remote server.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('directory on remote server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_read_file or ssh_delete.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the name and purpose, but lacks explicit guidance.

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