Create an assignment folder, optionally inside a parent folder and optionally owned by a creator (a creator-owned ROOT folder becomes her bucket and drives per-creator routing in the app).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Folder name | |
| parent | No | Parent folder (id, name or full path). Empty = root folder. | |
| owner_model | No | Creator owning this folder (name, email or model_id). Only meaningful on a root folder. Empty = shared folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: a creator-owned ROOT folder 'becomes her bucket and drives per-creator routing.' This explains a non-obvious side effect beyond what the schema or annotations provide. It does not cover conflict/failure behavior, but the core mutation semantics are sufficiently transparent.
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 a single well-structured sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: it names the resource, explains the optional parent, and clarifies the important owner/root routing consequence. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 create operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: required name, optional parent, optional owner, and the special root-folder behavior. It is slightly thin on what the caller should expect after creation, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that parent placement is optional and that a creator-owned ROOT folder becomes a bucket affecting per-creator routing. This extends the schema's terse 'Only meaningful on a root folder' note.
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 action and resource: 'Create an assignment folder.' It differentiates from siblings like create_drive_folder and create_assignment by naming the resource type and clarifying the optional parent/owner semantics. The purpose is immediately identifiable.
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 implies when to use this tool — to create assignment folders, optionally nested or creator-owned. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_drive_folder or create_assignment, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusionary guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
