post_folders_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. 'Create folder' implies a write operation that likely requires specific permissions and may have side effects (e.g., folder hierarchy implications), but the description doesn't mention any of this. It also doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action ('Create folder'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, which are critical for safe invocation. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for using this tool is underspecified, especially compared to sibling tools that might interact with folders.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name'. The schema already describes it as 'Name of the folder.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value (e.g., by explaining naming constraints or examples).

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 'Create folder' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_folders_folder' or 'patch_folders_folder' by focusing on creation rather than deletion or modification. However, it doesn't specify what kind of folder (e.g., in what system or context), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like required permissions), when creation is appropriate versus using existing folders, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'post_workspaces' (which might create workspace folders). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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