make_directory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the useful recursive behavior ('including all parents'), but it does not mention edge cases such as what happens if the directory already exists or whether any content is risked.

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 very short bilingual sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior and the recursive-all-parents behavior are both stated concisely and are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is essentially sufficient. Missing details like existing-directory handling and return behavior are minor for this simple operation.

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 fully documents the single 'path' parameter as an absolute directory path, so the description does not need to repeat it. The recursive note helps clarify that the path may be nested, but it adds no further parameter-level detail.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a directory including all parents' (创建目录含所有上级目录). It distinguishes this as a filesystem/directory-operation tool rather than a file-content or scene-operation tool like write_text_file or create_box.

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 use case is obvious from the description: create a directory while also creating any missing parent directories. There is no sibling dedicated to directory creation, so no exclusion is required, though the description could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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