create_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create a folder, optionally nested' and does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., duplicate names, permission requirements, or whether nesting is recursive). For a write operation, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot anticipate failure modes or side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the key option. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail 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 simple folder-creation tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not explain return values, but that is not obligatory given the lack of an output schema. It could arguably mention that parent_id defaults to top-level, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to make a correct call.

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 100% for both parameters ('name' and 'parent_id' are each described). The description adds the phrase 'optionally nested inside another,' which restates the parent_id intent already captured by the schema's default and description. No new meaning is provided, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 states a clear verb ('create') and resource ('folder') and mentions the optional nesting, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders or delete_folder. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there is no competing create-folder tool, it also does not direct users to list_folders for obtaining parent_id, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., 'use create_note for notes'). The schema implicitly hints at list_folders, but the description alone lacks this guidance.

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