create_routine_folder

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that id, index, and timestamps are server-assigned, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or behavior on duplicate titles. For a create operation, this is moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 a single sentence, action-first, with no waste. The additional clause about server-assigned fields is concise and valuable, making the sentence efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one required parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavior (creation and server-side field assignment) and is reasonably complete for this simplicity. It doesn't mention return values or errors, but those are not strictly required given the context signals.

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 only repeats 'given title' without adding semantics like uniqueness, formatting, or length constraints (beyond schema's minLength). Since there is only one parameter, the description should provide more meaningful guidance but does not.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('routine folder'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_routine by specifying 'folder'. It also clarifies that only the title is user-provided, with all other fields server-assigned.

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 implies usage for creating routine folders but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The context of a create operation is clear, but there are no exclusions or comparative guidance.

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