create_media_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool creates a folder, returns it, and that the id can be used downstream, which is actionable. However, it omits failure modes, permission requirements, or idempotency specifics, leaving some behavioral 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, the return value is mentioned briefly, and the precondition is the final sentence. Perfectly sized for the tool.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return value, and a usage precondition. It integrates with sibling workflows. The only minor gap is not clarifying whether 'name' is effectively required, but the schema covers parameter details and the description provides sufficient operational context.

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 100%, so both 'name' and 'parentId' are already well documented. The description's mention of the return value doesn't add new meaning to the parameters themselves, so it stays at the baseline 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 media folder') and explains its downstream role by mentioning that the returned id can be passed to upload_media or move_media. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_media_folders, update_media_folder, and delete_media_folder.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition ('Only call after the user agreed to the folder you described') and hints at the typical workflow by naming upload_media and move_media as consumers of the folder id. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it versus alternatives, but the context is clear.

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