create_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns the created folder with id, name, messageCount, and unreadCount'), error condition ('Returns an error if the parent folder does not exist'), and the default vs. subfolder behavior. While it doesn't mention duplicate names or permissions, it provides substantive behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, all relevant and without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then efficiently covers key usage details, return values, and error handling. Each sentence earns its place.

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 simple create tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the default behavior, subfolder option, how to obtain parent IDs, the return object, and the error case. It could mention duplicate folder name handling, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently prepares an agent to use the 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting parent_folder_id creates a top-level folder, which is already in the schema description for that parameter. No additional semantics are provided for the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema already offers.

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 mail folder in Outlook.' and distinguishes from siblings like rename_folder, move_folder, and delete_folder. It adds specificity by explaining top-level vs. subfolder creation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool and key prerequisite guidance: 'Use list_folders to discover existing folder IDs for the parent.' It also clarifies the default behavior (top-level) vs. subfolder usage, which helps agents decide when to include parent_folder_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction to consult list_folders serves as a useful guideline.

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