create-onedrive-folder

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about conflictBehavior (rename, replace, fail) and that 'replace' can overwrite an existing folder. However, it does not explicitly warn about the destructive potential or explain the confirm gate, which is only in the schema. It provides some behavioral detail beyond annotations but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with a clear primary action and a succinct TIP. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides value, with no filler or redundancy. The structure efficiently conveys the core purpose and key usage details.

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?

Despite the complex nested body schema, the description identifies the required fields and conflict resolution options, which are the most critical for correct invocation. It does not describe return values or the confirm gate, but these are covered by the schema and annotations. For a folder-creation tool, it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to call it 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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the description goes further by specifying that the body must include name (string) and folder ({}) fields, which are essential for a folder creation. It also clarifies the use of @microsoft.graph.conflictBehavior, a parameter not listed in the schema properties. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Create a OneDrive folder' with a specific verb and resource, and the TIP adds that it creates inside a specified drive item. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create-onenote-page, the resource type is clear enough for an agent to select it for folder creation. It is not a tautology and effectively communicates the primary action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what to include in the body (name and folder fields) but does not state when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related operations like file upload or renaming. The usage context is only implicit from the tool name.

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