Create Folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: the folder is private to the caller, and the response is the new folder object including its ID, which the agent needs to chain into an upload. It does not address idempotency (whether re-creating a same-named folder duplicates or collides), despite idempotentHint=false, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint and privacy note front-loaded before the return value and next-tool pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, privacy, and return value, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gaps are duplicate-name behavior and nesting workflows, neither covered by annotations or schema.

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 100%, so both name and parent_folder_id (including the 'omit for top level' rule and where IDs come from) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (Create) and resource (folder) and immediately scopes it: 'in your personal Canvas storage (not in a course)'. That parenthetical rules out the course-file folder tools a reader might otherwise confuse it with, and it names the follow-up tool upload_to_my_files.

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 'not in a course' clause and the 'Upload into it with upload_to_my_files' pointer give clear context and a next step. There is no explicit exclusion against siblings like get_folder or list_folders, and no guidance on when to nest via parent_folder_id versus creating at top level, so it falls short of a full 5.

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