create_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. It discloses the creation operation via IMAP, the naming conventions, the restriction on system folders, and the return value. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., folder already exists, invalid characters) or side effects beyond creation.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information, though a very minor improvement could be to merge the first two sentences for tighter structure.

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 the simplicity of the tool (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage, restrictions, and return value. It does not address what happens if the folder already exists or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward creation tool.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the prefix conventions and providing an example. Baseline is 3; the extra context merits a 4.

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 action ('Create a new mailbox folder via IMAP') and the resource ('mailbox folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_folder and rename_folder by specifying creation. The prefix conventions further clarify the exact type of folder being created.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool (creating folders) and when not to (system folders). Provides clear prefix naming conventions for Proton Bridge ('Folders/' for user folders, 'Labels/' for labels) with an example ('Folders/Receipts'). This guides the agent appropriately.

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