bin_create_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a mutating operation ('create') but says nothing about behavior on duplicate folder names, how a nonexistent parent is handled, whether nesting is supported, or project-state requirements. Minimal, not misleading, but far from transparent.

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?

A six-word, single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place. It loses a point only because the brevity reflects thin informational content rather than efficient compression of rich detail.

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?

Though the tool is low-complexity (2 params, 1 required, no enums), the absence of annotations and 0% parameter coverage leaves key gaps: the meaning of 'parent', prerequisite project state, and error/failure behavior. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call, particularly for the optional parent parameter, from the description alone.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'name' constraints apply or what 'parent' means (parent folder path? ID? does null mean the bin root?). The property names and default value are mildly self-descriptive, but the agent is left guessing about the parent parameter's format and semantics.

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?

'Create folder in project bin.' states a specific verb (create), resource (folder), and location (project bin). Among the sibling tools, the bin_* family handles clips (import, list, remove, move) and renaming, so the folder-creation purpose is distinguishable without opening the schema. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling or clarify folder hierarchy semantics.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as bin_rename or bin_import_clip, no prerequisite conditions (e.g., whether a project must be open), and no exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate invocation context entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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