folders_write

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable action-specific behavior: delete removes the folder only and keeps agents, update should include only changed fields, and add_agent/remove_agent move agents in or out. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or return values, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 overall purpose and then organized by action in a compact, dense sentence. Every clause carries actionable information about parameters or side effects, with no 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 destructive, multi-action tool with a nested folder object and no output schema, the description covers invocation well by explaining each action and its required fields. It still omits return/error behavior and permission requirements, so an agent lacks some context around outcomes and authorization.

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?

The description compensates for partial schema coverage by explaining conditional parameter requirements per action: create needs folder.name and accepts optional color/icon/starred/parentFolderID/agentIDs, update needs folderId plus a partial folder object, delete needs folderId, and add_agent/remove_agent need folderId plus agentId. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 resource, agent folders, and enumerates the exact operations: create, edit, delete, add_agent, and remove_agent. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling folders_read by making the write/move scope explicit.

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 gives per-action guidance, including required fields, the note that update should be used to rename, and the important caveat that delete removes only the folder while keeping agents. It does not explicitly state when to use folders_read instead or when not to use this tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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