Create a new snippet folder

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it doesn't state whether creating a folder with an existing name fails or overwrites, whether the icon/color fields are optional, or what the response contains. The phrase 'for the authenticated user' adds a small amount of context about scoping, but the description largely repeats the title.

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 very short, which is concise, but it repeats the title almost verbatim ('Create a new snippet folder' appears twice). The second sentence adds only the authenticated-user scoping. It earns a middle score because it is not bloated, but the repetition wastes the opportunity to add useful 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 create operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what values to pass for icon/color, whether name is required, or what a successful creation returns. The sibling list shows many related snippet tools, but the description does not connect to them or clarify how this tool fits into the workflow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters (icon, name, color). It does not. The description only mentions 'snippet folder' without explaining what values are valid for icon or color, whether name is required, or how these fields affect the created folder. This is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new snippet folder.' It clearly identifies the action and the target object, and the title reinforces it. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like termix_snippets_create_new_snippet, but the resource (folder vs snippet) is distinct enough in the name and description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether a parent folder is needed, or how this relates to other snippet folder operations like rename or update metadata. The only context is 'for the authenticated user,' which is a minor usage note but not sufficient.

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