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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond the annotations: no change occurs until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action is called. It also notes that MCP approval requirements are administratively configurable and that business workflow approvals always apply, which is important operational context not captured by readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.

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 reasonably short but front-loads a generic sentence about RetailHardHat documents records before stating the actual create action. The approval details are useful, but the opening sentence is filler and delays the core purpose.

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 description covers purpose and important approval-gating behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a nested-object creation tool with 0% schema description coverage, it is incomplete on parameter meaning, especially parentFolderId and siteId 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 description coverage is 0%, including a nested data object with name and optional parentFolderId. The description only loosely implies siteId by saying 'a site's document tree' and does not explain name, parentFolderId, root-level placement, or any parameter constraints, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action: create a folder in a site's document tree. The verb and resource are unambiguous, and the create verb naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_document_folder, delete_document_folder, and list_document_folders, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 says to use this when working with RetailHardHat documents records, which is broad and only implicitly guides usage. It does not explain when to choose this over related siblings such as update_document_folder or apply_document_folder_to_all_sites, though the approval workflow note provides useful context for when it will actually execute.

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