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

Annotations already declare `idempotentHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, but the description adds the important behavioral facts that intermediate parent folders are created automatically and that a Pro plan is required — a precondition the annotations do not cover. The idempotency sentence largely restates the annotation, and nothing is said about failure modes such as name conflicts with existing files.

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, front-loaded phrases: the action and its scope first, then the key parameter semantic, then the idempotency and plan requirement. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive creation tool with an existing annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the recursion behavior, idempotency, and the plan gate. The only real gap is `connection_id`, whose role is left entirely to the schema.

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 must carry the load. It clarifies that `path` is a relative path (a meaningful detail absent from the schema), but says nothing about the base it is relative to, nor about `connection_id`, which is required and completely unexplained.

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 ("Создать папку в облаке") and immediately narrows scope with "включая промежуточные", which separates it from file-level siblings like `move_file` or `remote_upload`. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Usage is implied by the creation verb, and the note "Требует Pro" gives a real prerequisite that could block invocation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus other creation tools (`create_share_link`, `create_transfer`, `create_scheduled_sync`) or when not to use it.

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