scm_create_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a creation operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious 'create' implication.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor issue is that the parameter documentation could be more integrated with the main description.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or system constraints. The parameter documentation is good, but overall completeness is only moderate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful semantic information for all 4 parameters: name uniqueness requirement, parent folder examples, description optionality, and tsg_id default behavior. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 new folder') and resource ('in Strata Cloud Manager'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_create_snippet' or 'scm_create_tag', which also create resources in the same system.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when this tool is appropriate versus other folder-related tools like 'scm_update_folder' or 'scm_delete_folder'.

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