Create a folder

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the folder_name_conflict error and the fact that it lists existing folders. That is useful behavioral detail for an agent. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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, each serving a purpose: the action, the uniqueness constraint with error behavior, and the scope restriction. There is no filler, no repetition of the title, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and annotations, the description covers the operation, the input constraint, the conflict failure mode, and the scope. There is no output schema and the success return value is not described, but that is a minor gap for such a simple create operation.

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%, and the schema only says name is a string with minLength 1. The description adds that folder names must be unique and explains the conflict response, which is meaningful but still leaves out naming-rule details such as allowed characters, case sensitivity, or trimming behavior. The compensation is partial.

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 opens with 'Create a note folder in the local OpenWhispr app' – a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool’s job. The final sentence, 'Creating a folder is the only folder change the bridge allows,' distinguishes it from any folder update or delete operation. This is unambiguous and separates it from the note-managing siblings.

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 description lays out the unique-name requirement and the exact conflict return value, which tells an agent when the call can fail. It also makes clear that create is the only folder-mutation allowed. It does not explicitly direct agents to list_folders to pre-check names, but the guidance is still strong.

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