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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses default behavior for shared folders (open to team), the effect of open_to_team: false (restricted), the constraint that a nested folder must share its parent's drive, and the slug derivation from name, including the marketing folder requirement. No contradictions with annotations. Strong behavioral context.

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 several sentences long but each sentence carries information: purpose, space semantics, nesting, open_to_team behavior, and return slug. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically through parameters and constraints. No filler; though slightly long, it's efficient and well-organized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value; it does: 'Returns the new folder, with the slug derived from its name; in the website workspace the landing-page folder must end up slugged `marketing`, so check the returned slug.' It also covers key creation constraints (nested folder drive match, open_to_team default and restriction). It doesn't mention error cases or permission requirements, but for a creation tool with these details, it is largely complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'space' values (personal/shared, Pro workspaces only), indicates parent_id should come from list_folders, and details the behavior of open_to_team (including the marketing folder exception). It also hints at workspace_id behavior indirectly through 'the website workspace' example. This adds genuine value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a folder to organize sites.' This is a specific verb plus resource, and given the sibling set (delete_folder, rename_folder, move_folder, set_folder_slug), it distinguishes itself as the creation operation. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides concrete usage context: it explains how to create top-level versus nested folders via parent_id (from list_folders), notes that shared drive is 'Pro workspaces only', and clarifies the open_to_team behavior. It also mentions a specific use case in the website workspace (slug must be 'marketing'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the sibling listing implies them. Adequate guidance.

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