create_folder

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context: exactly one folder is created, the account must be explicit, and shared parents are rejected as a failure mode. It omits what happens on duplicate names, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences with the action verb front-loaded and the constraint placed immediately after. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately covers account/parent constraints and the shared-parent refusal; the only material gap is duplicate-name behavior for a non-idempotent create.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that accountId is explicit/required and parentFolderId is optional, matching the required list, but it says nothing about the 'name' parameter (length bounds, uniqueness, naming rules), leaving a third of the parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('CREATE one ordinary folder') with a clear scope qualifier ('one ordinary') that implies non-batch behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from note-oriented siblings by resource alone, but it never names a sibling tool or contrasts with an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the required context ('explicit account', 'optional parent') and one negative condition ('Shared parents are refused'), which is real usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g. create_note, or a bulk/create-many path), so usage is only implied.

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