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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful placement behavior ('root level or inside an existing folder'), but it does not mention duplicate-name handling, permission requirements, or other edge-case behavior. The added value beyond annotations is modest but present.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the optional nesting behavior is stated in a single additional clause.

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?

The tool has a rich schema, full parameter descriptions, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter syntax. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and primary usage. A small gap is the lack of guidance on workspace resolution, but that is already handled in the schema's parameter descriptions.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters well. The description's placement statement mirrors what parent_folder_id already says ('If omitted, folder is created at root level'), adding little new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Create a new folder in a workspace.' It also clarifies the two placement modes (root level or inside an existing folder), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_document, create_tag, or update_folder.

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 clear context for when the tool applies: when a new folder is needed, with the choice between root-level or nested creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for selection.

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