make_directory

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotent (won't error if exist), recursive parent creation, and directory restrictions. This covers safety and constraints adequately.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads core functionality, the second adds idempotency and constraints. No extra words, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, idempotency, recursion, and allowed directories. It does not mention failure behavior or return value, but for a simple creation tool with no output schema, these are minor gaps.

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% (the 'paths' parameter has a detailed description). The tool description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states 'Create single or multiple directories' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'recursive parent creation (like Unix 'mkdir -p')' and idempotency, which is unique among file operation tools.

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 when to use (create directories recursively, idempotently) and includes a limitation ('Only works within allowed directories'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among the sibling tools.

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