Create Folder

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts the annotations don't carry — the 'Experimental' status and the fact that document content is untouched — but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what duplicate names do.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the experimental caveat and the scope boundary each earn their place. Slightly abrupt but nothing is wasted.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description only needs to frame purpose and scope, which it does. The remaining gap is not relating this tool to list_organize_nodes, move_organize_node, or rename_folder for follow-up operations.

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 name, index, parentId, and workspaceId semantics are already documented in the schema, including the AFFINE_WORKSPACE_ID fallback. The description mentions no parameters at all, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create an AFFiNE organize folder node in the sidebar tree') and immediately bounds the effect ('only changes sidebar organization, not document content'). That contrast is what separates it from create_collection or create_doc, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for sidebar tree organization only. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer a folder over a collection, nor prerequisites such as needing a parent from list_organize_nodes.

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