tc_create_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the folder name must be unique within the parent, max 255 characters, parent_folder_id omitted means root folder, and the return format. This provides constraints and side-effect expectations not captured in annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then prerequisite, args, return value, and alternative. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose and uses formatting (one line per param) for readability.

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 create-folder tool, the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, constraints, return format, and the key alternative for larger operations. It is self-contained even though the input schema is minimal, and it references tc_write_status for extra context. No critical gaps exist.

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 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: project_id resolves the region, name has length/uniqueness constraints, and parent_folder_id has a default behavior (root folder). All three parameters are semantically defined, fully compensating for the schema's minimal info.

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 begins with 'Create ONE new folder inside a parent folder,' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly states the tool's scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tool tc_create_folder_structure, noting that for a 'whole CDE tree use tc_create_folder_structure instead.' This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiated.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 (see tc_write_status).' It also gives an explicit alternative for a different use case: 'For a whole CDE tree use tc_create_folder_structure instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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