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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: persistence to .xodia/folders.json, visibility in the Pages panel and plan, address validation rules (lowercase words with dashes, max 5 levels), the address_clash refusal, and the "Writes an unsaved change" semantics that reveal it is an uncommitted mutation.

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 identity of the resource is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the middle sentence is a long, heavily nested run-on that an agent must parse for the clash rules. Slightly tighter punctuation or a split would improve scanability without losing content.

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 four-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers persistence, validation, error behavior, and the unsaved-change state. The only gap is what the call returns (the created folder/address), which is a minor omission given there is no output schema to rely on.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by defining the address grammar (lowercase dashed words, up to 5 folder levels) and clarifying clash scope, including the subtle case that a collection's /blog/<slug> item level belongs to its items unless the collection reserves that slug. That adds meaning the schema's maxLength-only `path` description does not convey.

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 an empty folder") and immediately defines the resource semantically ("an address segment such as /services; a folder is not a file"), which separates it from create_page, create_collection, and create_project in the sibling list. It also distinguishes the artifact from implicitly-existing folders, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool makes.

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?

"Folders that pages or collections use exist without this" is an explicit when-not-to-use rule: only call this to pre-create an empty folder. It also documents the failure path (address_clash with reason). It does not name a sibling alternative for restructuring an existing folder (update_folder) or for creating pages, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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