create_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on conflicts (duplicate names), whether folders can be nested, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 that an output schema exists (which should define the return value), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, the description should provide more context about permissions, constraints, and behavioral expectations. It's minimally adequate but leaves important gaps.

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 50% (only 'name' has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The description doesn't explain 'parent_folder_id' or provide context about folder hierarchy. However, with only 2 parameters and one clearly named ('name'), the baseline is met but not exceeded.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new folder in Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_file_to_drive' or 'create_google_doc', but the resource specificity (folder vs. file/doc) provides some implicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upload_file_to_drive' (for files) or 'create_google_doc' (for documents). There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or contextual constraints for folder creation.

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