Create a wiki asset folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors beyond the basic create action: the root folder default and the idempotency-like error handling (if folder exists, error suggests reuse). It does not cover permissions or return format, but for a create operation these are less critical and the given behavior is valuable.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key error-handling note. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or clutter.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers purpose and main behavioral quirk. However, it does not mention what the tool returns on success (e.g., folder ID or object), which could be important for an agent without an output schema. It also omits any mention of permissions. These gaps lower the score below what would be fully complete for a creation tool.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters fully (slug pattern, parentFolderId default and meaning, name default). The description adds little beyond the schema, aside from reinforcing the root default via 'parentFolderId 0 = root'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('asset folder'), and includes the key distinction of a parent folder relationship with 'parentFolderId 0 = root'. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like wiki_create_page or wiki_upload_asset.

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 clear usage context: it specifies that the folder is created under a parent, clarifies root semantics, and gives guidance on how to handle the 'already exists' error (reuse the existing folder). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no direct alternative exists among siblings, so this is sufficient.

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