manage_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions operations like 'delete' which imply destructive actions, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether deletions are permanent, error handling for invalid paths, or effects on linked notes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads all key operations and the resource. There is zero waste—every word earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the complexity of a multi-operation mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, permissions), output format, error conditions, or how operations interact with the vault structure. This is inadequate for a tool that can perform destructive actions like deletion.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (operation, path, newPath) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining path formats or operation-specific nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Create, rename, move, or delete') and resource ('a folder in the Obsidian vault'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note, move_note, or delete_note which operate on notes rather than folders. It precisely defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from alternatives.

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 implies usage for folder operations in an Obsidian vault, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_note for notes, move_note for moving notes). It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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