nexterm_create_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on required permissions, whether names must be unique, or what happens when parent_id/organization_id are omitted. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes zero behavioral context.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. Every word earns its place only because there are so few words.

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?

Corrected: with no output schema and a mutation tool, the description is far too thin for an agent to call it confidently in an unfamiliar hierarchy (organizations, folders, entries). Key facts—required permission scope, default root placement, and name uniqueness rules—are absent, so completeness is inadequate for the complexity of the surrounding toolset.

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 and it does not. It never explains what parent_id does (root-level vs nested?), what organization_id scopes, or whether name must be unique within a parent, leaving all three parameters documented only by their titles and type constraints.

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 a clear verb+resource (create a folder), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as nexterm_create_entry, nexterm_create_organization, or nexterm_update_folder, and does not say what a folder is or where it lives in the hierarchy.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., does the folder belong to an organization, must the parent exist?), and no indication of what happens on name collision. The single sentence provides no usage context at all.

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