create-folder

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description does not mention duplicate handling, permission requirements, path behavior, or effects on existing folders.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource clearly.

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 straightforward create operation with complete schema coverage, the description plus annotations are minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain how projectId/environment are obtained, what happens on duplicate names, or what the successful response contains, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying a folder is created, but the schema already documents name, path, projectId, description, and environment adequately.

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 also names the product context ('in Infisical') and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create-secret, create-project, and create-environment by targeting a different resource type.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites are needed. The distinction from sibling tools relies entirely on the resource name rather than explicit routing or context.

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