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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds value by disclosing that folders can be nested and by giving a concrete example. It doesn't discuss failure modes or permissions, but for a simple create tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the example is both illustrative and compact. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward folder creation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose, nesting capability, and provides an example. It doesn't cover edge cases (e.g., duplicate names), but those aren't critical for basic usage.

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. The description's example reinforces how parentPath is used but doesn't add substantively new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Create') and resource ('folder in your media library'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_folder, rename_folder, and list_folders. It also includes an example of nesting, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 gives context ('for organizing analyzed media') and demonstrates a nesting use case ('Q1 2026' inside '/Marketing'), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the create intent is obvious given the sibling set.

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