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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the description focuses on valuable extras: default type inheritance from the parent, the one-level nesting constraint, the requirement to pass `team` when creating under a club folder, and that club libraries only accept 'event' and 'plan' types. Those are real behavioral constraints not present in the annotations.

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-loaded with the purpose, then a compact per-parameter breakdown. The backtick-led bullet format is slightly awkward in prose but each sentence carries concrete 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?

Covers what is needed to call the tool correctly and even points to the follow-up (filing templates via create_training_frame/update_training_frame with `category`). With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; only minor gaps like duplicate-name behavior remain.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the meaning and allowed values of `type`, the source of `parent` handles (list_library_categories) and the nesting limit, and the source of `team` handles (list_athletes) plus its restrictions. Only `name` is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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 your template library, or in a club's library') and scopes it beyond a single library. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_library_category or list_library_categories.

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?

Explains the routing decisions an agent actually faces: root vs sub-folder via `parent`, personal vs club library via `team`, and the one-level nesting rule. It stops short of naming when to prefer update_library_category over creating a new folder, so no explicit exclusion is given.

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