imap_create_folder

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-creation of parent folders and idempotent success (returns success even if folder exists). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic action, though it could mention potential errors or 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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence fronts the primary purpose, and the second adds two important behavioral notes. Every word earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality, parameter usage with examples, and common server behavior. It partially addresses return behavior ('Returns success'), but lacks explicit output format details. Still, it's sufficient for a simple creation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example for the folder parameter ('Archives/2026/2026-05') and clarifying that it supports path notation. This helps the agent construct valid inputs beyond the schema's type description.

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 'Create a new IMAP folder/mailbox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like imap_folder_status and imap_list_folders by focusing on creation, and no sibling tool duplicates this functionality.

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 implies when to use the tool (to create a folder) and provides implicit guidance about auto-creating parent folders, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No direct exclusion is needed given the unique purpose.

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