Creates bookmark or note folders and runs a capacity precheck first, blocking creation with a prompt when the folder limit is reached.
创建新的书签或笔记文件夹。创建前会自动进行容量预检，达到文件夹上限时将自动拦截并提示。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icon | No | 图标名称或图标 URL | |
| info | No | 文件夹描述说明 (0-30字符) | |
| name | Yes | 文件夹名称 (1-30字符) | |
| password | No | 访问密码（可选，设置后公开页面需密码才能查看内容） | |
| content_type | No | 文件夹类型：bookmark (书签) 或 note (笔记) | bookmark |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the brunt. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: an automatic capacity pre-check that blocks creation at the folder limit. It omits other relevant traits for a mutation tool, such as permission requirements, name-uniqueness behavior, and what the password field enables on the public page.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the limit-blocking behavior. It leaves gaps an agent would want: return value/created identifier, permission prerequisites, and how the optional password affects visibility.
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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the bookmark/note enum and password semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at 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 uses a specific verb+resource (创建新的书签或笔记文件夹) and even names the two folder subtypes, making the operation clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ilinks_create_bookmark, so an agent must infer the folder-vs-bookmark boundary.
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 by the plain 'create folder' statement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as create_bookmark. The capacity pre-check note is behavioral rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.