create_folder

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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that a folder is created and constrains the folder parameter values; it does not state whether the operation is idempotent, whether existing folders are overwritten, whether nested paths are created, or what happens on conflict.

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 second sentence about folder values is useful, but the first sentence merely restates the tool's name ('create folder') in French and adds no new information. The description is short but not efficiently informative, bordering on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

With no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should explain the role of subpath and the intended folder creation semantics, but it does not. The tool may be invoked incorrectly because key input behavior is missing, even though an output schema exists to describe return values.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds critical meaning for 'folder' by listing inbox|quick|archive|trash, which the schema does not provide as an enum. However, 'subpath' remains completely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 the action ('Cree un dossier' = create a folder) and defines the allowed values for the required 'folder' parameter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_folder, delete_folder, and duplicate_folder. However, it does not clarify what differentiates a folder from a note or the role of subpath, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being created.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_note or write_note. The description does not mention prerequisites, whether the folder must already exist, or how subpath influences the target location, so the agent is left without clear decision context.

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