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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: idempotency on case-insensitive name match returning alreadyExisted=true, and the exact return shape. This is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Every sentence is load-bearing: scope, prerequisite, root-level rule, idempotency, return shape, next step. Front-loaded with purpose and 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return object inline and covers the mutation's idempotency and nesting semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for parentId ('omit for root-level', valid parent comes from list) and name (case-insensitive matching). workspaceId is left unexplained, a minor gap given how self-evident it is.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Create a folder in a workspace') and is immediately distinguishable from siblings workspaceFolder_list/update/delete. An agent knows exactly what this does 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite (call workspaceFolder_list to find parents), the root-level condition (omit parentId), and the follow-on step (form_create with folder.id, or nest deeper). When-to-use and sequencing are fully specified.

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