create_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral transparency. It explicitly discloses the idempotent behavior of returning an existing folder on name collision, which is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple create operation this is adequate.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains zero filler. Every phrase adds value, including the idempotency note.

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 creation tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, the idempotent behavior, and the return behavior on conflicts. It lacks an explicit statement of what a successful creation returns, but the description's mention of 'returns the existing one' implies the return of a folder object.

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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds meaning by linking the 'name' parameter to the idempotent duplicate-handling behavior, which is not present in the schema. This elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'contact folder', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_contact. It also adds the unique idempotent behavior of returning the existing folder, which fully clarifies its purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (to create a folder) and clarifies behavior on duplicate names, which is useful for agents deciding whether to call this or list_folders first. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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