Create a OneDrive folder

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (folder id + webViewLink), the optional nesting behavior, and the semantic distinction from save_to_onedrive's folder name. It does not contradict annotations and covers the key behavioral aspects beyond the structured metadata.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return value, then usage and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and well-organized.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this description is complete. It explains the return value (compensating for the lack of an output schema), provides usage guidance, and disambiguates from a similar sibling. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with both 'name' and 'parentId' already described in the input schema. The description reiterates the nesting behavior but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema covers parameter semantics, the description's additional context is useful but not required, landing at the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder in the user's OneDrive'), explains its purpose ('to organize saved files'), and distinguishes itself from close siblings like save_to_onedrive and create_drive_folder by explicit naming and context. It also mentions the return value, making the tool's role 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 usage guidance: it explains how to use the returned id (as moveToFolderId for update_onedrive_file or as parentId for nesting) and explicitly warns about the difference from save_to_onedrive's folder name. While it doesn't enumerate all alternatives, it effectively prevents common misuse and gives actionable next steps.

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