Creates a new mail folder in a Microsoft 365 or Outlook account, so you can organize messages into a custom folder directly from your AI assistant.
Use this when the user wants a new mail folder in their Microsoft 365 / Outlook account: it is created on t...
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.424Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond implying creation, it discloses nothing about permission requirements, behavior on duplicate folder names, whether the folder is nested or top-level (the sentence is cut off mid-word at 'created on t…'), or what is returned.
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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the definition is visibly truncated mid-clause ('created on t…'), leaving a fragment that an agent cannot reliably act on. Size is appropriate; completeness of the delivered text is the problem.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it is incomplete and cut off. An agent cannot determine how the folder name is supplied or what constraints apply.
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 schema declares zero parameters at 100% coverage, which would normally set a 4 baseline. However, for a folder-creation tool the total absence of any parameter for the folder name or parent location is a real semantic ambiguity the description never resolves, so it falls short of the baseline.
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 ('a new mail folder') and names the target account type ('Microsoft 365 / Outlook account'), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as outlook_create_folder or create_email_folder, which is the main gap.
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 'Use this when the user wants a new mail folder' clause gives a usable trigger condition, but there are no exclusions or alternatives named despite at least two sibling tools (outlook_create_folder, create_email_folder) that appear to do the same thing. The agent must guess which one to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.