Skapa mapp eller etikett

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: unprefixed names are rejected rather than auto-corrected, subfolder creation fails unless the parent exists, and names must be unique across folders and labels together with a descriptive error returned on collision.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses compact bullets for the prefix rules and a short Args/Returns block. The Returns section partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is minor waste, but nearly every line earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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 dual-mode creation tool with no schema documentation, the description supplies the prefix grammar, nesting rules, uniqueness constraint, and failure behavior, which is everything required to invoke it correctly. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so the brief Returns note is extra rather than 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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must carry the full load and does: it specifies the mandatory prefix syntax, gives concrete examples ('Folders/Projekt', 'Labels/Kvitton'), and explains nested-path behavior for each prefix. Nothing needed to build a valid argument is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Skapa en ny mapp eller etikett') and immediately disambiguates the dual mode via the required Folders/ vs Labels/ prefix. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like add_label (label an existing email), rename_folder and delete_folder without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly explains when to choose each mode: an email lives in exactly one folder, but can carry multiple labels; subfolders are allowed while sublabels are not. It gives strong in-tool routing context but never names or contrasts sibling tools (add_label, rename_folder), so there is no explicit when-not-to-use.

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