SharePoint MCP Server

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 implies a mutation ('Create'), but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a folder ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new folder') and adds necessary context ('in the specified directory or root if not specified'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and detailed parameter usage. For a tool that creates resources, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 meaning by explaining that 'parent_folder' defaults to root if not specified, which clarifies the optional parameter's behavior. However, it doesn't detail 'folder_name' constraints (e.g., length, invalid characters) or format for 'parent_folder' (e.g., path string). This provides some value but doesn't fully cover the parameters.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new folder'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like Delete_Folder or List_SharePoint_Folders by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from Upload_Document, which might also create items, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides basic context by mentioning 'specified directory or root if not specified,' but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like Upload_Document for files or List_SharePoint_Folders for checking existing folders. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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