Create a new email folder to organize messages. Specify a folder name and optionally select an account for multi-account email management.
Create a new email folder/mailbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new folder | |
| account | No | Account name (uses default if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create', which implies mutation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error cases (e.g., if folder already exists). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. Every word is earned; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks information on return value, error handling, or behavior on duplicate names. No output schema exists, so the description could have added value by mentioning what happens after creation.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (name, account). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance understanding.
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 clearly states the action (create) and the resource (email folder/mailbox), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_folder and list_folders by specifying the creation function.
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 guidance is implied by the tool name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. Sibling tools are listed, but the description does not clarify when to choose create_folder over others or mention prerequisites like account existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.