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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the root-placement default and an authorization prerequisite for shared folders, which is genuinely useful. It does not cover failure modes such as duplicate names, whether creation is reversible, or what the call returns.

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 short clauses, no filler, with the creation purpose front-loaded and the parent/permission rules following. Every clause adds information an agent needs before calling.

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?

A mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover side effects and results. It handles parent placement and permissions well but says nothing about the returned folder object or naming constraints, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'null/omitir = raíz' semantics. The description mostly restates that default while adding the permission nuance for shared parents. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Crea una carpeta de tareas recurrentes"), which is enough for an agent to know this creates a task-scoped folder rather than an issue or log folder. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling creators (folders_create, issue_folders_create), so the agent must infer the differentiator from the qualifier 'recurrentes'.

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 concrete usage context: omitting parentId creates the folder at root, and placing it inside a shared folder requires edit permission. That is a real prerequisite the agent would not otherwise know. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over the other folder-create siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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