email_folder_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether folder creation is immediately visible, whether duplicates are prevented, whether parentPath is required, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero wasted words. It's concise, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being tight and complete.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. Given the complexity of folder operations (hierarchical paths, duplicates, visibility), and the large sibling toolset, this one-sentence description is materially incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema covers 0% of parameters with descriptions, so the description must compensate. The description says only 'Create a new email folder' and gives no meaning for accountId, name, or parentPath. The agent cannot infer that parentPath is optional or how names/paths are structured without further guidance.

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 'Create a new email folder' states a clear verb-plus-resource purpose. It's adequate but generic, and given the sibling email_list_folders and many email tools, it doesn't specify what kind of folder, where it can be created, or how it differs from related operations like email_move or email_label which might involve folder-like structures.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There are many sibling email tools, but no indication of when folder creation is appropriate versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing account) or hierarchical folder behavior given the parentPath parameter.

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