n8n_manage_folders

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only. The description adds n8n version requirements, the projectId default to 'personal', and the critical limitation that folder contents are only visible as counts. No contradiction with 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 four information-dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and version requirements. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers actions, requirements, defaults, cross-tool relationships, and a key API limitation. Minor omissions like error handling or permission requirements are not critical given the schema's richness.

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 baseline 3. The description repeats the projectId default and mentions parentFolderId in other tools, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool manages workflow folders and enumerates six specific actions (create, list, get, rename, move, delete). The note that the API cannot report which folder a workflow is in further distinguishes this tool's scope from sibling workflow-management tools.

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?

It explicitly directs workflow-folder placement to n8n_create_workflow and n8n_update_partial_workflow, clarifying the boundary between folder management and workflow-to-folder association. It also gives version/instance requirements and warns about the API limitation, providing strong context. It could be more explicit about 'when not to use' but the guidance is solid.

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