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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete auth requirement by stating the API-key scope `folders:write`, which is useful operational context not present in annotations. It does not describe side effects or return behavior, but with annotations present this is a solid addition.

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 two short sentences with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 full schema coverage and annotation hints, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, target container, naming convention, and required API-key scope. It does not explain what is returned or any side effects, which is a minor gap because there is no output schema, but the essential calling information is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that space is identified by name, which aligns with the schema but does not add syntax or constraints beyond it. The richer parameter details, including account, workspace, and idempotencyKey behavior, are already fully documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a folder inside a space.' It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling operations like pm_update_folder or pm_delete_folder, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The extra note that the space is identified by name is useful but partially redundant with the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the create wording, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives such as pm_create_list or pm_create_space. An agent can infer the intended use but is not helped in choosing between sibling creation tools.

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