Создать папку (группу) справочника

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the dry-run/confirm pattern, which is a two-step preview-then-write flow. It does not mention permissions or duplicate-name handling, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then parent nesting, then the 1C folder/group caveat. No filler sentences, though the trailing 'dry-run/confirm' fragment is terse to the point of being a note rather than explanatory prose.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers defaults, nesting, domain semantics and the confirmation workflow. The only meaningful gap is guidance on choosing this tool over the overlapping sibling create_group.

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 all six parameters including confirm, operationId, entitySet and database are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal framing — that 'parent' produces nesting and that the default entitySet is Контрагенты — which largely restates schema content.

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 ('Создаёт папку/группу в иерархическом справочнике 1С') with the default target named (Контрагенты) and clarifies the 1C-specific equivalence of folders and catalog groups. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling write.counterparty.create_group, which appears to overlap in intent.

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 description shows when the parent parameter applies (nested folders) and the dry-run/confirm sequencing, but never says when to use this generic tool versus write.counterparty.create_group or write.entity.move_to_folder. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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