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. It discloses the return format ('{id, responseMessage}') and explains how 'project' and 'version' parameters are interpreted. It does not mention permissions, error scenarios, or constraints like unique folder names, but it is adequate for a simple creation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing parameter hints and return type. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return format, and parameter nuances for key fields. It lacks details on the 'description' parameter and constraints like uniqueness, but it is largely complete for a straightforward folder creation tool.

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. It adds meaning for 'project' and 'version' (accept keys/names/ids, prefer ids, -1 = Unscheduled). However, it does not explain 'cycle_id', 'name', or 'description' beyond their names and types 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 the action ('Create a folder') and the context ('under a cycle'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_cycle' (creates cycles) and 'update_folder' (updates folders).

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 provides context (folder creation under a cycle) and gives usage hints for the 'project' and 'version' parameters (prefer ids, use -1 for Unscheduled). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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