Create an approved folder

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the client-side confirmation form, that a declined form retires the token, that removal is manual in the Proton app, that an already-existing folder succeeds without consuming the token, and the partial=true interruption case with guidance to check list_actions. The annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world, and the description is consistent with them rather than merely restating them.

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?

Front-loads the approval precondition, then groups behavior, then return values, so the structure mirrors the decision order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries a distinct constraint; only the already-existing-folder sentence is slightly redundant with the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description summarizes the returned fields and, more importantly, explains what partial=true means and what to do next. For a token-consuming mutation with an interruption failure mode, nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds real meaning by explaining that the token is single-use, comes from the approved preview, and — crucially — that 'the token, not an argument, names the folder'. That resolves what an agent might otherwise guess wrong about.

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 ('Create the folder') plus the token-driven scope, and distinguishes itself from preview_create_folder by tying the call to an approved preview. An agent can tell it apart from the preview sibling without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly sets the precondition ('only call after explicit approval of its preview') and the source of the token, and gives a fallback: an expired, used or unknown token means 'preview again'. It even covers the when-not case implicitly by warning that repeat calls change nothing.

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