files_create_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden — yet it discloses nothing about behavior. It does not state what happens on duplicate names, whether the folder is created at root by default, whether it is reversible (it is a mutation), or any permission requirements.

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 a single two-word phrase that is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficient front-loading.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or effects. An agent cannot determine error behavior, overwrite semantics, or default placement from the description alone.

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%: both parentId ("상위 폴더 ID(생략 시 루트)") and folderName are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"폴더 생성" (create folder) merely restates the tool name files_create_folder — a tautology with no additional specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like files_copy, files_move, or files_rename, which is especially relevant given the large set of file-operation siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the parentId/root placement decision. The schema's parentId description hints at root vs. nested placement, but the description conveys nothing.

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