dynadot_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions like 'create' and 'delete' but fails to explain critical details such as permissions required, whether deletions are irreversible, rate limits, or what happens to domains within folders during operations. This is inadequate for a multi-action tool with potential mutations.

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 the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating actions for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, multiple actions including mutations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'folder-level settings,' which hints at parameters like set_whois or set_dns, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Folder management: create, delete, list, configure folder-level settings,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dynadot_domain or dynadot_dns by focusing on folders, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as dynadot_domain_settings for domain-level configurations or dynadot_dns for DNS management. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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