Creates a new proxy folder.

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that a unique identifier is returned at creation and is reused for update/delete, which is important since no output schema exists. It does not discuss naming conflicts or permissions, but the annotation bar is already met.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the second sentence about proxy folders being a container "used for better organization" is explanatory filler that does not help an agent call the tool. The remaining content is reasonably tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the creation result (the returned folder identifier) and the prerequisite validation of workspace ID and location, and annotations cover the safety profile. It omits only secondary concerns such as duplicate-name behavior.

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 100%, so name, location (with enum and default) and workspaceId (-1 = default workspace) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes that workspace ID and location must be valid, adding no syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("creates a new proxy folder") and additionally explains what a proxy folder is, so the agent knows the entity is a container for proxies. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_profile_folder. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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?

It gives one prerequisite ("The caller must ensure that the specified workspace ID and location are valid") but never says when to create a folder versus using an existing one, or what happens on duplicate names. Usage is only implied by the create verb.

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