create_folderCreates a folder at the top of a Space or inside another folder to organize drawings, which you can then add or move into it.
Creates a folder, at the top of a Space or inside another folder. Put drawings in it with create_drawing or move_drawing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| space | No | Default "private". Ignored with parentId: a folder takes its parent's Space. | private |
| parentId | No | Put it inside this folder (see list_folders). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that folders can be top-level or nested, but with idempotentHint=false it does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate folders, nor does it mention permissions or what the call returns.
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, front-loaded with the core action and placement, with no redundant or filler wording.
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?
For a simple three-parameter creation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The notable gap is that it never indicates whether the new folder's identifier is returned, which an agent needs in order to chain into create_drawing or move_drawing.
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 67% and the schema already documents the space/parentId interplay (space ignored when parentId is set). The description echoes the two placement modes but adds no syntax, default, or naming details beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Creates a folder") plus placement scope ("at the top of a Space or inside another folder"). It implicitly separates the tool from create_drawing/move_drawing by naming them as the way to populate a folder, though it never states a negative boundary.
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 describes the two placement modes and points to create_drawing/move_drawing for the follow-up action, which implies when to use it. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use an existing folder via list_folders first) and no prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.