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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real context beyond them: default private visibility that parent settings can override, rejection of name conflicts, and the exact permission scopes (files:write, account permissions). The retry guidance reinforces the non-idempotent hint without contradicting it. It stops short of describing the response shape or error modes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action, each carrying distinct information (scope, default visibility, conflict behavior, permissions, retry). No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in permissions, visibility defaults, conflict rejection, and retry safety. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for the opaque parent_folder_hash, which an agent needs before calling.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Known parent' hints that parent_folder_hash must reference an existing folder, but nothing explains what a folder hash is, where to obtain it, or the name length/character constraints implied by 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new folder') plus the scoping constraint ('under a known parent'). No sibling in the list performs folder creation, so an agent can unambiguously distinguish it from rename_folder, move_folder, and list_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?

It provides one useful operational guideline ('Inspect the destination before retrying an uncertain result') and states the required permissions, but never says when to use this versus move_folder or import_file, nor what precondition failure looks like. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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