Create GoHighLevel Custom Field Folder

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the critical warning about not running against live data, which is beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action/endpoint and providing a usage warning. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it creates, the HTTP method, and a safety warning. It could mention the response (e.g., created folder ID) but is adequate given the parameter schema richness.

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 83% (5/6 parameters described), so the burden on the description is low. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema; it only repeats the purpose. Baseline 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 action ('Create a Custom Fields V2 folder') and the HTTP method/endpoint ('POST /custom-fields/folder'). It distinguishes this tool as a write operation among siblings, which are mostly reads or other mutations.

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?

Explicitly warns 'do not run against live data without explicit approval,' which is a strong usage guideline. However, it doesn't contrast with other create tools (e.g., ghl_create_custom_field_v2) for when to use this folder-specific tool.

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