Criar pasta de email

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it instructs the agent to announce the folder before creating it and confirm afterwards, and it explicitly states 'Não afeta nenhum email existente.' It does not cover duplicate-name or failure behavior, but the annotations plus this safety statement give a good transparency profile.

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 compact and well-structured: the purpose comes first, followed by user-interaction steps and a safety note. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter create tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, required user communication, and non-destructive behavior. It does not address preconditions such as an active Outlook connection or duplicate folder handling, but these are not critical at this complexity level.

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 single parameter 'nome' is already described as 'Nome da nova pasta.' The tool description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that this name will be communicated to the user, so the schema carries the semantic burden and the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Cria uma pasta de email' – a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies a create operation for an Outlook email folder. The explicit 'Outlook' reference and example distinguish it from the generic sibling 'criar_pasta'.

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 intended context (creating a new email folder in Outlook) is clear, but the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as outlook_listar_pastas, outlook_mover_email, or generic criar_pasta. Usage is implied rather than stated with when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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