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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so 'WRITE: ... Not idempotent' is largely restatement. Beyond that it only adds the HTTP endpoint, with no detail on permissions, duplicate-name behavior, or what is returned — the kind of context a create tool would benefit from.

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 terse, front-loaded fragments — operation type, entity definition, behavioral caveat, endpoint. Nothing extraneous and the critical noun phrase comes first.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description does not say what the caller gets back (presumably a new folder id) or whether the folder is immediately usable by nocrm_add_lead_to_client_folder. Annotations and the full schema cover most of the surface, but that return-value gap remains.

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 100% and every parameter (name, user_id, description) is documented inline with constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('create a client folder') with a parenthetical that defines the domain concept ('an account that groups leads'), which cleanly separates it from nocrm_create_lead and nocrm_add_lead_to_client_folder. The endpoint reference (POST /clients) reinforces the resource.

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 'WRITE:' prefix and the entity definition imply this is the tool for creating a new client folder rather than attaching to an existing one (nocrm_add_lead_to_client_folder). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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