create_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the required OAuth scope (folder:write) but omits other relevant behavioral traits for a create operation, such as behavior on duplicate names, whether parent folder creation is supported, reversibility, or error conditions. The core side effect ('create') is apparent, but additional transparency is minimal.

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 carry all the content: the core action and the required permission scope. There is no fluff, and the primary action is front-loaded. For a simple create operation, this is appropriately concise.

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 description is too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. An agent is left to infer prerequisites, conflict behavior, and whether the mailbox_id must reference an existing mailbox. The operation may be simple, but critical contexual details are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the folder is created 'in a mailbox', which lightly clues the role of mailbox_id, but it does not explain name format, mailbox_id format, or any constraints. The bare property names provide the only meaning, which is thin for an agent.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a folder in a mailbox'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_label and create_mailbox. The addition of 'in a mailbox' narrows the scope beyond the tool name itself, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g., mailbox must exist), and no reference to sibling tools like list_folders or create_label. The only additional line, 'Scope: folder:write', is a permission scope, not usage guidance.

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