create_folder

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that: 'A path that already exists is left untouched.' The description adds substantial behavioral context: how parent folders are created, addressing by id instead of name, and refusal behavior when a parent path is ambiguous. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-organized into three focused paragraphs covering purpose, sibling differentiation, and addressing details. Every sentence adds value; the path example and design rationale are all earned. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but each point matters.

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 single-parameter tool with output schema present, the description covers everything needed: path semantics, idempotency, ambiguity refusal, addressing model, and the relationship with create_note. Output schema handles return values, so that omission is fine.

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 0% (path has no description in schema), so the description must compensate. It does: explains path format with an example, how segments are created under each other, behavior when the path already exists. The single parameter is thoroughly documented despite zero schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb (Create) + resource (folder) + location (path), with clear semantics: creates missing parent folders along the way. Distinguishes from sibling `create_note` by explicitly explaining the separation of concerns.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly states when to use this tool vs `create_note`, explains the design decision (create_note REFUSES unknown folders, so call this first to deliberately make the folder, then create the note). Also covers edge cases for path ambiguity and non-unique folder names.

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