ecp_files_add_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core creation action and omits important behaviors such as whether an existing folder causes an error, whether parent directories are created, and what permissions are involved.

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 and contains no filler words, with the core action front-loaded. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting useful guidance, so it is not a fully appropriate size.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine expected path semantics, failure behavior, or return behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention destination or folder_name. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and destination in particular is ambiguous without further context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new folder.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools like ecp_files_add_file and ecp_files_directory_tree, though it does not add any contextual detail about where or how the folder is created.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecp_files_add_file, ecp_files_write, or ecp_files_rename. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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