sassy_mkdir

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description complements rather than repeats them. It adds genuine behavioral context: explicit 'Mutating:' declaration, silent-success idempotency confirmation, refusal of paths violating the read-path policy, and the resolved-path return value. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. The mutation flag and core action are front-loaded, followed by policy/return behavior, then usage routing. Every sentence adds information that is not available in the schema or annotations.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present, no nested objects), the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: behavior, idempotency, policy constraints, return value, and decision boundary against a sibling. Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It does so meaningfully: path is a directory path that may have missing parents, is subject to policy checks, and gets resolved. It stops short of specifying format details (relative vs absolute, trailing slashes), but for a one-parameter mkdir tool the meaning is adequately conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('creates a directory'), adds precise behavioral detail ('including any missing parents', 'succeeds silently if the path already exists'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from file-writing siblings by framing what mkdir does that other tools do not. The agent can tell exactly what this tool accomplishes.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (sassy_write_file) and states the condition that selects this tool instead: 'sassy_write_file already creates missing parent directories, so call this mainly when you need an empty directory or an explicit container for later steps.' This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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