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

The description adds 'retry-safe mutation receipt' which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation, providing a bit more nuance. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already indicate, and the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 that conveys the primary action and result. It is concise without any redundant words, earning the highest score.

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 the complete schema coverage and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the core action and the return of a receipt, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and outcome.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics or relationships, so the schema does the heavy lifting. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Create') and resource ('media-library folder'), and mentions the return of a mutation receipt. This distinguishes it from siblings like media_folders_list, and the scope ('one folder') is explicitly defined.

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 implies its usage context: when you need to create a media folder. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., media_folders_list for listing) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so there is clear context but no exclusions.

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