create-contact-child-folder

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

The description contradicts the annotations: annotations mark destructiveHint=true, yet the description says 'Create' which is a non-destructive operation. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what the annotations already state (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description does not mention side effects, reversibility, or confirmation requirements, and the contradiction makes it misleading. Flagging as annotation contradiction.

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?

The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a tip with emoji that contains the body format, parent discovery, and return ID usage. It is moderately long but every sentence carries useful information. The tip could be more integrated, but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 nested-object schema with five parameters, the description covers the essential usage: how to format the body, how to obtain the parent ID, and how to use the returned folder's ID with other tools. It omits mention of the confirm gate (present in schema) but that is already documented in the parameter description. Overall, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it gives an explicit body example '{ displayName: 'Sub-folder name' }' and tells the agent to use 'list-contact-folders' to discover the parent ID. This compensates for the schema's generic descriptions and provides practical guidance for the required parameters (body and contactFolderId).

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 explicitly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'contactFolder' as a child of a specified folder or the user's default folder. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create-contact-folder' by emphasizing 'child' and 'sub-folder', making its scope unambiguous. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 a concrete usage instruction: 'Use list-contact-folders to discover the parent id.' It also covers two scenarios (under specified folder or default folder). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the root-folder creation tool 'create-contact-folder', relying on implication rather than stating when not to use this tool. This is a minor gap but the provided guidance is actionable.

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