Create Company Folder

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

The description adds that the tool returns the created object on success with HTTP 201, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, permission requirements, or the impact of parameters like is_tracked or explicit_permissions. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the partial behavioral context earns a mid score.

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 contains four sentences, but two are repetitive ('Creates a new Documents' appears twice) and the structure could be improved. The API endpoint and required params are useful, but the redundancy in the second and third sentences wastes space.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important details. It does not explain the parent_id parameter (folder hierarchy), the effect of is_tracked or explicit_permissions, or what fields the created object contains. Users would need to consult external API docs for full context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that 'company_id' and 'name' are required and shows the API endpoint, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for other parameters like parent_id, is_tracked, etc.

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 tool creates a new folder associated with a company, specifying the resource type 'Folder' and the required parameters. The mention of 'Documents in Procore' provides context, though the phrasing 'Creates a new Documents' is grammatically confusing and slightly detracts from clarity.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It states 'Use this to create a new Documents in Procore' but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_file' or 'list_company_folders'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, which is insufficient given the large number of siblings.

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