Criar pasta

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: recursion, tolerating existing folders, the authorized-folder requirement, and a mandatory user communication protocol with examples. This aligns with idempotentHint: true and adds meaningful operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then covers idempotence and interaction requirements. The scripted examples add length but are useful for consistent agent behavior, so every sentence earns its place without being bloated.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive creation tool, the description covers purpose, recursion, existing-folder behavior, authorization scope, and user-facing confirmation. The main gap is the lack of explicit failure handling, such as what happens when the path is unauthorized or invalid.

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%: the only parameter, 'caminho', is already described as 'Caminho completo da pasta a criar.' The description adds no new parameter-level detail such as path format, separators, or relative-path handling, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Cria uma pasta') and the resource, adding useful constraints: recursive creation, authorized parent folder, and idempotent behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling outlook_criar_pasta, but the general vs. Outlook scope is reasonably evident.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a folder needs to be created under an authorized location. It also gives procedural guidance about informing the user before and after execution, but it does not name alternatives such as outlook_criar_pasta or state when not to use this tool.

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