clickup_folder_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation creates something new ('Create a new folder'), returns a result ('Returns the created folder object including its new id'), and mentions the initial state ('start empty'). However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, error conditions, or rate limits that would be important for a creation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, additional context about folder behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 creation tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, behavioral notes (empty start, how to add lists), and return information. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error cases, but covers the essentials well given the structured data available.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (name and space_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a new folder'), resource ('inside a ClickUp space'), and scope ('Folders group related lists and start empty'). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_folder_list (list) and clickup_folder_update (update) by specifying 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 this tool ('Create a new folder inside a ClickUp space') and mentions a related action ('add lists via clickup_list_create with folder_id'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives like clickup_space_create for different parent resources.

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