custom_fields_create_custom_field_folder

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral details. It does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or interaction with locationId defaults. The description contributes nothing beyond the annotations, which themselves are minimal.

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 extremely short—a single sentence. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place because it simply repeats the tool name. Conciseness is appropriate, but the content is under-specified, offering no additional value beyond the identifier.

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 create operation with three parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the folder is used for, what the response looks like, or how it relates to custom fields. The agent receives no guidance on expected results or prerequisites, making the tool hard to use 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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for parameter semantics is 3 when the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no further explanation, but the schema already covers meaning adequately.

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 'Create Custom Field Folder' merely restates the tool name in sentence form. It provides a verb and resource but adds no context about what a custom field folder is, how it differs from a custom field, or its purpose within the system. Without sibling differentiation, it barely clarifies which tool to use.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The description gives no context about scenarios where creating a folder is appropriate versus other custom field operations. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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