acc_create_folder_structure

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: idempotency (existing folders reused, safe to re-run) and the return format (URNs level by level). This adds genuine value. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements, but those are less essential given the other disclosures.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, idempotency safety, and return value. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action, and well structured.

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?

Given tool complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers key aspects: batch creation, idempotency, and return behavior. It does not mention prerequisites like the parent folder existing, but the schema and sibling tool names (e.g., acc_get_top_folders) help fill that gap. Overall, complete enough for selection and invocation.

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%, so the structured descriptions already document all parameters. The description adds context about the intended use of the 'structure' parameter (ISO 19650 containers) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a whole nested folder tree in one call, with the specific purpose of CDE setup per ISO 19650. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acc_create_folder (single folder creation) by emphasizing batch/nested structure creation.

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 for when to use the tool (CDE setup, creating entire folder trees) and implies it is the batch alternative to repeated acc_create_folder calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full 'when-not' guidance.

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