Creates a Google Drive folder by name; omit parent_id to place it in My Drive root.
Create a folder. If parent_id omitted, folder lands in My Drive root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: omitting parent_id places the folder in the My Drive root. However it says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-name handling, or what is returned, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the default-location caveat is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 two-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the one non-obvious default. It is minimally adequate but omits return-value expectations and any permission or naming caveats an agent might need.
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 usefully documents parent_id's default behavior when omitted, but the required 'name' parameter gets no explanation of constraints or format. Partial compensation warrants a middle score.
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 ('Create a folder'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the read/write file siblings. It doesn't differentiate against a sibling that also creates containers or explain scope beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.
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 versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The only context given is the default location behavior, which is a behavioral fact rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.