Create Folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing the special 'personal' project_id value, the root-vs-nested behavior, and the requirement on project_id. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but for a straightforward create operation with an output schema these are secondary.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, followed by the most important parameter behavior, then the required-parameter nuance.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers project_id, parent_folder_id, and placement behavior. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates strongly: it explains project_id's required status and special 'personal' value, and it explains parent_folder_id's nesting semantics. The name parameter is adequately implied by 'Create a folder' and its string type in the schema.

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 and resource ('Create a folder') and immediately scopes it to a project, which clearly separates it from the sibling create_workflow. It also clarifies the two placement modes (project root vs nested) in a way that adds precision beyond the tool name.

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 gives task-specific guidance: pass parent_folder_id to nest, and project_id is required unless using the 'personal' alias. The pointer to list_folders for finding project_id is useful routing advice, but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool versus a sibling.

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