Create folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the essential 'Write operation' nature plus a two-step preview/confirm flow. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, conflict/error behavior (e.g. duplicate names), and reversibility, and its 'token from the preview' phrasing is at odds with the schema's boolean confirm.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the workflow note; little waste. The second sentence is slightly muddled by the 'token from the preview' wording that doesn't match the 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parenting, and the preview/confirm flow but leaves auth/permission needs, error handling, and return behavior unaddressed.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does by mapping the two undocumented integer params to their meaning: 'parent = Matter' (matter_id) and 'inside another folder' (parent_folder_id). The 'name' param is self-evident; only the confirm token phrasing adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Creates a folder') and precisely scopes it with the two valid parent contexts (a matter or another folder). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side clio_folder_list by operation, though it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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 offers workflow guidance ('preview first, then confirm with the token from the preview'), which is usage-relevant, but this framing actually conflicts with the schema's confirm description ('confirm=true performs the write... use it directly when the request contains everything needed'). It gives no guidance on choosing this tool versus alternatives.

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