Create a new Outlook mail folder and optionally nest it under an existing parent folder. Use name and parent path or ID to organize messages into custom folders.
Create a mail folder; pass parent_folder (name, path or ID) to nest it under that one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| parent_folder | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.30.2Input schema / properties / name / titleRemoved value: -"Name"Input schema / properties / parent_folder / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / parent_folder / defaultRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / parent_folder / titleRemoved value: -"Parent Folder"Input schema / properties / parent_folder / typeAdded value: +"string"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"outlook_create_folderArguments"v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write, and the description adds only the nesting behavior. It omits what happens when the folder already exists, whether the parent is auto-resolved or must pre-exist, and 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?
A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the parameter hint second; no filler or restatement of the name.
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?
Adequate for a two-parameter creation tool, but with no output schema the agent is left without the created folder's identifier, which is typically needed for follow-up moves or listing, and error behavior on duplicate names is unexplained.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that parent_folder accepts a name, path, or ID, resolving real ambiguity; however the required `name` parameter gets no mention and no format/constraint detail.
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 ('Create a mail folder'), which cleanly separates it from the other folder siblings (rename_folder, delete_folder, list_folders). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb makes selection unambiguous.
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 sentence explains a parameter's effect ('pass parent_folder to nest it') rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, what happens on a duplicate name, or when a flat folder is preferable to a nested one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.