Create Mail Folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a specific permission requirement (delegated Mail.ReadWrite) and clarifies the scope (top-level or child folder), but it does not disclose potential side effects, return behavior, or any post-creation details, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The permission note is valuable, and the Chinese intents provide localization without bloating the text. Every part serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy with 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 straightforward creation tool with a simple 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, the permission required, and the folder hierarchy capability. It lacks details about return values or error conditions, but the simplicity of the operation and full schema coverage make this acceptable.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (isHidden, displayName, parentFolderId) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema gives. The 'top-level or child' phrasing loosely maps to parentFolderId being optional, but this is redundant with the schema's 'Optional parent folder ID.'

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'mailbox folder', and further specifies 'top-level or child', distinguishing it from sibling folder creation tools like contacts_create_folder and drive_create_folder. The additional Chinese intent phrases reinforce the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context by indicating the tool creates mailbox folders and requires delegated Mail.ReadWrite permission, which sets expectations for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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