create_template_folder

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, so the description need not reiterate those. It adds value by disclosing the return structure (id, name, count). However, it does not discuss potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the behavior of the optional account parameter, 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?

The description is relatively concise with a brief intro followed by structured Args/Returns. It front-loads the core purpose. The Args/Returns section adds clarity but could be more compact. Still, no wasted sentences.

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's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers creation, return values, and a sibling tool. However, the missing documentation of the 'account' parameter makes it incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides a clear example for 'name' but completely ignores the optional 'account' parameter. This is a significant omission, as the agent needs to know what 'account' refers to and when to use it.

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 action ('Create a new folder') and the resource ('to organize templates'), distinguishing it from sibling create tools like create_campaign_folder and create_store by specifying 'template' context. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description provides context ('group related templates for easier navigation') and directs to list_template_folders for browsing, suggesting a clear workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, e.g., if folders already exist or if other organizational methods are preferred.

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