ticktick_create_folder

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety and idempotency. The description adds context about folders organizing projects, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate folder names. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides additional context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be more directly actionable, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation operation with one parameter) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the 'what' but lacks details on 'how' to use it effectively, such as parameter constraints or interaction with sibling tools. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is acceptable.

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%, but the description doesn't mention parameters at all. The schema defines a single required 'name' parameter with a description 'Folder name', but the tool description adds no semantic context beyond what's in the schema. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 purpose with 'Create a new project folder', specifying the verb (create) and resource (project folder). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_create_project' by focusing on folders rather than projects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ticktick_update_folder' or 'ticktick_list_folders', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance with 'Folders help organize projects into logical groups', which implies a use case but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_create_project' for creating projects directly or 'ticktick_update_folder' for modifying existing folders. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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