Create Folder

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: this is a write to the personal vault and it returns decrypted folder names, which is an important data-sensitivity disclosure. It omits what happens on duplicate names, permission requirements, and error behavior for a non-idempotent write.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body mixes in tool-family routing notes and a CONCEPT identifier that do not directly help invoke this specific tool. The single-sentence first paragraph is efficient; the remaining text is partially reusable boilerplate rather than create_folder-specific instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description usefully notes that returned names are decrypted. For a non-idempotent write against a personal vault, however, nothing is said about duplicates, confirmation, or side effects, leaving the agent without enough to predict outcome beyond success/failure.

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%, so the schema already documents params_json fully; baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of value by revealing that the meaningful field inside params_json is 'name' ('create_folder (name)'), which the generic schema does not convey. No format, constraint, or encoding guidance is given for the JSON blob.

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 opening line names a concrete verb+resource ('Create folder') and scopes it to personal-vault folders, so the agent knows what will be produced. It also routes the agent away from the raw-route family ('every other folders API route is reachable via call_operation'). It stops short of naming the closest siblings (post_folder, put_folder, delete_folder) explicitly, so differentiation is only partially achieved.

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 tool-family routing implied by 'every other folders API route is reachable by its route name via call_operation' tells the agent this wrapper is the preferred path for creating folders, and list_folders is identified as the read counterpart. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose create_folder over post_folder/post_folders, and no prerequisites (auth, vault unlock, duplicate-name behavior) are stated.

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