vibemk_create_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a folder is created but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing folders), required permissions, validation behavior, or error conditions. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 very concise, consisting of two short phrases. It is not verbose and communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, though that is penalized in other dimensions. As a standalone statement, it is well-structured for quick reading.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any constraints on the folder path or parent relationship. The context of how folder creation fits into the system is not addressed, leaving the agent without enough information to anticipate outcomes.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (title, folder, parent), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline is 3 given 100% schema coverage, and the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 folder') and the resource ('folder'), and adds specificity with 'Add new folder to the structure'. This distinguishes it from sibling folder operations like get, delete, update, and move, so an agent can easily identify when to use this tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or reference other folder operations. For a tool with many siblings, this is a notable gap.

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