Create Folder

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent create operation, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond those flags: it discloses the return value (the created record with assigned id) and the 422 validation error format with the offending field named. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the unique scoping/nesting behavior, and finally return/error handling. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of the title.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns (created record with id) and error behavior (422 with field name). It also covers the global vs company context and nesting, which are critical for correct invocation. Minor missing context like auth requirements is not essential given annotations and the simplicity of a create operation.

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 already covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The main description reiterates parent_folder_id and company_id semantics, but this adds little beyond what the schema provides. No additional param syntax or format info is introduced that isn't already in the schema.

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 'Create a new folder in Hudu' and defines what a folder is ('groups knowledge-base articles'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the global vs company scope and nesting behavior via parent_folder_id, which is a concrete and unique scope.

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 explains when to use folders and how they relate to companies and global knowledge base, which helps decide whether to include company_id. It also references hudu_list_folders for copying icon values, but it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of hudu_update_folder' or provide exclusions for when not to use it.

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