Create project directory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the restricted environment and that symlink traversal is blocked, which is useful safety behavior. It does not mention failure modes, what happens when the directory already exists, or whether parent directories are created, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main action appears first, followed by two concise, information-bearing constraints.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required here; the description covers the key permission and symlink constraints. It is still missing path-resolution details and error behavior, which an agent would need to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps 'directory path' to the path parameter and 'project/worktree' to the project parameter. It does not explain whether path is relative or absolute, how nested paths are handled, or what form a valid project identifier takes.

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 specific action—creating a directory path—and adds scoping constraints (write-enabled, non-protected project/worktree, symlink traversal blocked). It is clearly distinct from file-level and listing siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 'only in a write-enabled non-protected project/worktree' phrase gives an explicit precondition for safe use, which helps the agent decide whether this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it beyond that precondition.

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