Create a spreadsheet_folder.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "spreadsheet_folder_create"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's bar is lower, but it still adds nothing: no mention of what happens on duplicate names, whether creation requires auth/scopes, or what is returned. For a mutation tool it leaves the agent guessing about side effects.
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 single sentence is short and front-loaded but is under-specification rather than conciseness — it saves words by omitting every useful fact rather than by editing out 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?
For a simple two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is created, whether the name must be unique, what color format is accepted, and what the call yields. None of that is present, so the definition is incomplete even at this low complexity.
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 is the only place parameter meaning could be added, yet it mentions neither `name` nor `color`. It doesn't say whether color is a hex code, a palette name, or whether the 100-char name must be unique — all real ambiguities the schema's maxLength does not resolve.
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 text "Create a spreadsheet_folder" restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no information beyond it. It doesn't distinguish the tool from close siblings such as spreadsheet_file_create, spreadsheet.create_with_content, or spreadsheet_folder_update, which an agent must choose between.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (parent folder, permissions), and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.