Crear carpeta

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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) in an open-world context. The description adds the useful side effect that the folder is subscribed, but omits permissions, idempotency, and what happens if the folder already exists.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a practical naming note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation, the description covers the core action and a naming convention. It is still missing important mutation context such as failure behavior when the folder exists and whether permissions are required.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds cPanel-specific prefix examples (INBOX.Clientes, INBOX.Facturas) beyond the schema's examples, giving extra naming semantics for that environment.

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: 'Crea una carpeta IMAP' and adds the subscription effect. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like list_mailboxes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 cPanel prefix note ('usa un prefijo como INBOX.Clientes') gives useful context for naming, implying when this naming convention applies. However, it does not say when to use this instead of list_mailboxes or other mailbox-management siblings, nor any when-not conditions.

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