sigma_create_folder

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether parent_id must reference a folder or workspace, whether the folder is created immediately, or any side effects like permission checks. The description simply restates the operation without elaborating on behavior beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to read and front-loaded. It earns a high score for brevity, even though it lacks informational depth, because the conciseness dimension rewards minimalism.

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 two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete. It omits necessary context about the parent_id parameter and the expected folder structure, leaving users to guess how to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the lack of input guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage for its parameters (name and parent_id), and the description fails to explain their semantics. 'Create a folder.' provides no hint about what parent_id refers to or any constraints on the name. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 'Create a folder.' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (folder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sigma_create_workspace or sigma_create_workbook. However, it lacks any qualifiers about the folder type or location, making it generic but still unambiguous in the Sigma context.

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 typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., existing parent folder), or contrast with sigma_create_workspace or other create operations. Users are left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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