clio_create_folder

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

The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some authentication/scoping context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the folder already exists, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 short (three sentences) and to the point. It front-loads the tool's identity, then provides routing context, then parameter format. No wasted words, though it could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of concerns.

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 is a create operation (mutation) and has sibling tools, the description lacks critical context: what a folder is, valid arguments, error handling, return value (output schema exists but not elaborated), and relationship to other Clio tools. The brief description leaves many gaps for an agent to fill.

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 one parameter 'arguments' (type string, default {}). The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds that the input should be JSON. However, it does not specify what keys or values are valid, leaving the agent to guess. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it barely does.

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 it is a 'create_folder' operation in Clio, which implies creating a folder. However, it does not specify what a folder represents in Clio (e.g., document folder, case folder) or provide any distinguishing details from sibling tools. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like clio_list_folders or clio_create_bill. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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