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. The mkdir -p analogy discloses recursive creation and idempotency (to those familiar with the command), but it omits edge cases such as behavior when the directory already exists or when the path is invalid.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main functionality and behavior, leaving only minor gaps around failure conditions and the exact interpretation of 'one or more'.

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 schema already documents the path parameter at 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that a single path can create one or more directories (via intermediate parents), though the phrasing 'one or more' is slightly ambiguous with a single string parameter.

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 action (create) and resource (directories), with a useful mkdir -p analogy that conveys recursive creation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_path or list_directory.

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 the tool is for creating directory structures but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., write_file for files) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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