gdrive_create_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaning of dry_run ('preview the change without committing') and exist_ok ('return an existing same-named child folder instead of erroring'), plus the default parent behavior of 'My Drive root.' It does not mention permissions or auth requirements, but for a non-destructive create with an output schema, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 organized with clear sections: a one-sentence purpose, a Discovery note, Use/Not-for bullets, and an Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage distinctions are front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 creation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers alternatives, discovery steps, default behavior, safety flags, and parameter semantics, giving an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly without consulting additional context.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains each parameter: folder_name, parent_folder with default, parent_folder_id as stable ID, exist_ok, and dry_run. This goes well beyond the bare schema field names and gives an agent enough to choose and fill parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a folder in Google Drive.' It further differentiates itself from siblings with explicit 'Not for' clauses covering gdrive_create_doc, gdrive_rename, and gdrive_move, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from related operations.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use this for: creating a new folder') and when not to use it, naming the alternative tools. It also gives discovery guidance to run gdrive_search or gdrive_list_folder first when nesting under an existing folder, leaving minimal ambiguity about invocation context.

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