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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety and behavior disclosure burden. It reveals meaningful behavioral facts beyond the schema: duplicate sibling names produce a 409, parent folders must belong to the same community, and price cannot be zero or negative. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or response behavior, but it does disclose the main failure conditions.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the next two state the most important validation constraints. The key decision-relevant information is front-loaded and there is no redundant 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?

The description adequately captures the core creation rules for a folder, but the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not describe the response shape, the created folder's ID, permission prerequisites, or default behavior for unspecified fields. An agent can form a valid request but not fully predict what a successful call returns.

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 57%, so the schema covers some fields but not all. The description adds semantic value by explaining parent_folder_id scoping, name uniqueness, and the positive-price rule. These details go beyond the structured schema, particularly for name and the community constraint on folders.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a resource-library folder.' This distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools such as hivelearn_create_resource, hivelearn_create_course, and hivelearn_create_module, which target different entity types. The purpose is immediately clear and not a restatement of the tool name.

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 provides several important call constraints: parent_folder_id must be in the same community, names must be unique among siblings, and price must be positive. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hivelearn_create_resource or when to prefer updating an existing folder. Usage context is implied rather than directly contrasted.

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