create-contact-folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description adds little beyond that. It mentions the return value (created contactFolder with id), but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior related to the confirm parameter. Moreover, it introduces a potentially misleading capability (child creation) without clarifying the actual behavior, which is a transparency gap.

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 description is only two sentences plus a tip, but the first sentence is redundant and confusing because it repeats a claim later contradicted by the tip. The tip is concise and useful, but the overall structure would benefit from removing the conflicting opening and stating the intended scope upfront.

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?

The description provides the return value (created contactFolder with id) and a simple example, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it fails to clarify the exact creation scope (default vs. child) and does not explain other required parameters beyond displayName. The ambiguity about child folder creation leaves a significant gap in an agent's ability to call this 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 schema has 75% description coverage and already documents most parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete body example ({ displayName: 'Family' }) which is helpful, but it does not explain how to specify a parent folder (e.g., via parentFolderId) and instead redirects that use case to a sibling. This adds some value but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 the verb and resource clearly ('create a new contactFolder'), but the scope is ambiguous: the first sentence claims it can create under the default folder or as a child of a specified folder, while the tip says to use create-contact-child-folder for sub-folder creation. This internal contradiction weakens the clarity of what the tool actually does.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling create-contact-child-folder for sub-folder creation, which is good guidance. However, the opening sentence contradicts this by implying this tool can also create child folders, so the when-to-use guidance is muddy. The tip partially clarifies, but the conflict reduces confidence.

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