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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does credibly cover the root-vs-nested branching and the edit-permission requirement inside shared folders, which is genuine context beyond the schema. It says nothing about what is returned (folder id), whether duplicate names are rejected, or what happens on permission failure for a mutating call.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the parentId branching. The parenthetical permission note is compact rather than bloating the text.

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 with full schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the action, both parameters, and the key precondition. The remaining gap is the return value and error surface, which is acceptable given the tool's 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 100% and both parameters already document their meaning, including "null/omitir = raíz", so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the parentId semantics and adds a permission consequence, but contributes no new format or constraint detail.

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?

"Crea una carpeta" states a specific verb and resource, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never distinguishes itself from the scoped siblings (issue_folders_create, log_folders_create, task_folders_create), leaving ambiguity about whether this generic create applies to a workspace root or a project context.

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 parentId sentence implicitly tells the agent how to choose root vs. nested creation, and the parenthetical adds a permission precondition for shared folders. There is no explicit when-to-use framing versus folders_list or folder_share, and no statement about failure behavior when the permission is missing.

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