Create a folder. If one with that name exists it is returned instead (the response's created says which). Needs recordings:write.
Create a folder. If one with that name exists it is returned instead (the response's created says which). Needs recordings:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing upsert semantics (an existing same-name folder is returned rather than duplicated), how to tell the two cases apart via the response's `created` field, and the required `recordings:write` scope. The idempotency behavior described is consistent with idempotentHint=true.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the non-obvious edge case and the permission requirement. No filler or restatement of the name.
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 one-parameter mutation with annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: the permission scope, the duplicate-name outcome, and the response discriminator. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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% for the single `name` parameter, so the description carries some burden. It clarifies that `name` is the folder's identity for the duplicate check, but says nothing about the 1-60 character constraint or naming rules the schema enforces.
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') that is unambiguous against every sibling, none of which create folders (list_folders only reads them). An agent knows exactly what the call does without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied by the operation itself; there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to alternatives. The duplicate-name clause does tell the agent it does not need to pre-check existence with list_folders, which is useful but incidental rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.