add_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says nothing beyond the mutation itself: it does not disclose whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the parent must already exist, what is returned (a folder ID is presumably needed for follow-up calls), or how failures surface. The important ambiguity-failure behavior exists only in the schema text.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with fully documented schema fields, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. However, with no output schema and no hint about the return value or error conditions, an agent cannot anticipate what comes back after a successful add.

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%, and the property descriptions already explain parentFolderId vs parentFolderName, the root-level default, and the multi-match failure mode. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Add a new folder') plus the target system (OmniFocus), so an agent knows exactly what it creates. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near siblings like add_project or add_omnifocus_task, leaving the folder-vs-project distinction to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus add_project, add_omnifocus_task, or edit_item, and no prerequisites mentioned. The only usage-adjacent guidance (root-level default, nesting behavior) lives in the schema, not the description.

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