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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the case-insensitive deduplication rule and the resulting already_existed=true contract, which explains why the tool is safe to call as an upsert-style 'ensure'. It also enumerates the return payload, adding behavioral context that openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the dedup/return contract, then cross-references to related tools. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

Even without an output schema, the description spells out the returned fields (folder_id, name, parent_folder_id, already_existed) and the idempotency semantics, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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: name matching is case-insensitive and duplicates are suppressed, and parent_folder_id omission means the workspace root ('Omit for the workspace root'). These are semantic details beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Create a folder in the workspace') plus its scope ('optionally inside another folder') and intent ('to organize projects'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools such as create_project and create_clueprint.

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 follow-up and discovery guidance by naming sibling tools: 'Put projects in it with create_project(folder_id=...)' and 'List existing folders with find(type='folders')'. It also indicates the safe 'ensure a folder exists' pattern, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g. the project/clueprint alternative).

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