Create Remote Directories

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'recursively' adds valuable detail beyond annotations. However, it does not explain what happens if the path already exists or permissions required, which is partly covered by idempotency.

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?

Extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering idempotency, the description is fairly complete for a simple recursive directory creation tool. It covers the core functionality but could mention it resembles Unix mkdir -p.

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% with both parameters (sessionId, path) described. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 'Creates directories recursively' explicitly states the action (create) and resource (directories), with 'recursively' matching the mkdir -p behavior. It clearly distinguishes from sibling file tools like fs_write or fs_rmrf.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it is the only directory creation tool among siblings, there is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison to similar operations like using a shell command directly.

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