create_folder

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

The description usefully discloses that missing parents are created and that existing folders are left untouched. However, it says nothing about permissions, what happens on an invalid or conflicting path, or the return value. It also sits in tension with the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false annotations, which the prose neither explains nor reconciles (folder creation with parent-only side effects is not obviously destructive).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information (parent creation, non-clobbering behavior). 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 mutating tool with no output schema and 50% schema coverage, the description covers the core semantics but leaves gaps around return value, error behavior, and the desk/project selection path. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to predict outcomes confidently.

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 50%, and the strongest parameter documentation (desk_url, including the instruction to ask the user for it) is already in the schema. The description adds only the parent-creation note, which the path parameter's own description also states. It offers nothing about desk_id or project_id, though their patterns make them largely self-explanatory, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with added scope: 'Create a folder on a project disk, including missing parent folders.' That is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from path-manipulating siblings such as move_path or sync_files, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The only guidance about desk_url vs project_id/desk_id lives in the schema, not the description. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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