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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile of this mutation is carried by structured data. The description adds only the purpose (survey grouping), and with idempotentHint=false it does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate folders or mention required permissions, which would have been useful added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource, and the scope in order. No redundant or filler text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to state what comes back (e.g. the new folder ID needed for later moves or access management), and it does not. For a simple two-parameter creation tool with full schema descriptions and complete annotations, this is adequate but leaves a practical gap about follow-up usage.

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 the schema descriptions are genuinely useful ('max 255 символов', 'Взять из workspace://list'), so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description adds nothing about parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Создает новую папку') and adds the scope ('для группировки опросов в выбранном workspace'), so an agent can distinguish it from the many create_* siblings. It does not explicitly name the closest relatives (manage_workspace_folder, get_folder_list), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_workspace_folder or get_folder_list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is 'в выбранном workspace', which just restates that a workspace must be chosen.

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