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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does add real context beyond the name: default placement at root when parentId is omitted, the edit-permission requirement inside a shared folder, and a pre-check step to avoid duplicates. It stops short of saying what happens on a name collision or what the call returns, which for an unannotated mutation tool is a remaining gap.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the disambiguation that matters most, then placement rules, then the pre-check. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, what it does not, default placement, permissions and a duplicate-avoidance step. Only the post-creation result and conflict behavior are left unstated.

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%, with both parameters already documented (including "null/omitir = raíz"). The description's statement about root placement largely restates the schema; its only added semantic is the permission implication of choosing a shared parent, which is marginal. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Crea una carpeta de bitácoras") and immediately disambiguates from the most confusable sibling: "no de notas: para esas usa folders_create". An agent can distinguish this from folders_create, notes_create and the other *_folders_create variants without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing (use folders_create for notes), an explicit precondition ("Comprueba antes con log_folders_list que no exista una adecuada") and a permissions condition for the shared-folder case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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