make_folder

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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: 'Staged only' tells the agent nothing is committed until apply_changes runs, and the one-level limit plus the generated Back key describe structural side effects not present in 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, the structural caveat follows, and 'Staged only.' closes with the one operational fact an agent most needs. Nothing can be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the nesting limit and staging requirement, which are the non-obvious behaviors. It could have named apply_changes or discard_changes as the follow-up to 'staged only', which is the only real gap for this 7-parameter mutation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond it by explaining how 'name' is consumed — the folder is created as '<this profile's folder>/<name>' — which clarifies the path composition and the implicit link to the selected profile. It adds no detail on image, back_slot, or back_image, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a folder') and explains what a folder actually is in this system: 'a new profile opened by a key on this one, with a Back key inside.' That is well beyond a restated name. It does not name or contrast any sibling (add_child, manage_profile, set_key), so it loses the differentiation point.

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 one-folder-level constraint and the staged nature imply context, but the description never says when to choose make_folder over add_child, manage_profile, or set_key, nor does it state prerequisites such as the slot needing to be empty (that lives only in the 'slot' schema description). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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