Create a folder

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered in structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an entitlement gate that must be verified through get_status and a mandatory user-confirmation step before mutation. It does not address duplicate-name handling or what is returned, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the entitlement check front-loaded before the action and the confirmation requirement last. Every clause carries an actionable constraint.

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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the definition covers the plan gate and the confirmation protocol that an agent would otherwise get wrong. It is slightly thin on what a successful call returns (e.g. the new folder id) and on duplicate-name behavior, but nothing blocking is missing.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents both `name` and `parentId`, including the 'Default: the top level' behavior. The description's 'at the top level or inside another folder' merely restates the parentId semantics already in the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields and the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a folder') plus the placement scope ('at the top level or inside another folder'), which separates it cleanly from list_folders and move_videos. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

It states a hard precondition ('Recordful Pro only (check get_status recorder.account.plan first)') and a required interaction protocol ('Show the user exactly what you will change and wait for their yes first'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs. Nothing about the decision to call this tool is left to inference.

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