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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent create. The description adds genuinely new behavior: default audience resolution by creator type (internal vs external) and an explicit refusal case for external editors requesting internal. That is useful authorization context beyond the annotation set; it omits what happens on slug collision, which the non-idempotent hint implies errors.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the create variants before the constraint rules. Nothing is padding, though the compressed phrasing ('go alone') takes a second read.

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?

With five parameters, a full schema, annotations, and an output schema present, the description supplies the missing piece: combination rules and permission defaults. Conflict/duplicate handling on slug is the one gap, minor given the non-idempotent hint and output schema.

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 already 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the per-property schema cannot express — mutual exclusion of team/workspaceId and the audience-workspaceId dependency. Only 'why' and 'slug' constraints are left to 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?

States a specific verb (Create) plus the exact resource variants it produces — personal, team (team), workspace (workspaceId) — and names the parameter that selects each. An agent can distinguish it from folder_update/folder_delete 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 concrete selection rules: 'team and workspaceId go alone', 'audience requires workspaceId', 'a workspace folder needs why'. That is clear guidance on which parameter combination to use, though it stops short of naming siblings or stating when to prefer folder_update over a create.

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