manage_mail_folder

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It notes the return format and that invalid paths produce error messages, but lacks important behavioral details such as destructive warnings (e.g., delete is irreversible), permission requirements, side effects, or operation restrictions (e.g., cannot delete system folders).

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 one sentence followed by a return format and a note. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, structuring the operations as a bullet list could improve readability. Minimal waste, but not perfectly structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 6 actions, no output schema), the description covers operations and return format adequately. However, it omits important context like whether actions are synchronous, permissions needed, or restrictions on deleting system folders. The note on error messages is helpful.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional context beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. For example, it doesn't clarify how parent_folder interacts with folder_path for create operations.

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 manages mail folders and lists six specific operations (list, create, delete, rename, get_details, move). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_emails (which handles messages) and browse_email_cache (which deals with cached content).

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 implies usage for folder CRUD operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_emails or manage_emails). No explicit when-not-to-use or related tool references are provided.

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