fs_create_dir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency and the user-approval prompt for external agents, which are valuable operational details. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple create operation this is above average.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the idempotency and approval notes are relevant and concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: idempotency and user approval. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what will happen when called, though it does not explain return values (likely covered by the output schema). Overall, it is appropriately complete for its 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond its name. The 'parents included' note hints at nested paths, but there is no guidance on path format, relative vs absolute, or other constraints. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'directory', with the additional note 'parents included' which specifies scope. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from fs_create_file and other file operations.

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 use for directory creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., use fs_create_file for files). The purpose is obvious, but no explicit routing is provided.

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