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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description's added value is the paid-plan prerequisite and the business rule about which flows an organization folder accepts, plus the return value. It does not cover behavior on duplicate names or on supplying both team_id and org_id, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and then the routing constraints. Each sentence carries distinct information (action, prerequisite, routing, return).

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 no output schema, the description helpfully states it returns the new folder, and it covers prerequisites and folder-type routing. Missing only edge-case behavior such as duplicate-name handling or id combination, which an agent might still need.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it tells the agent that org_id comes from list_organizations and frames team_id/org_id as alternative routing keys rather than independent flags. It stops short of stating whether they are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Create a new folder") followed by a taxonomy of the three folder kinds this tool produces, which cleanly separates it from delete_folder, rename_folder, and move_flow_to_folder. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the 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?

Explicit conditional routing: pass team_id for a team folder, org_id for an organization folder, otherwise a personal folder, plus the prerequisite that personal folders require a paid plan and the constraint that only organization flows belong in an organization folder. No sibling is named as an explicit alternative, and conflicts (both ids supplied) are unaddressed, so it stops short of a 5.

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