Create a Yahoo Mail folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that '/' is used for nested paths, which is a useful syntax detail, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the folder already exists), permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description implies mutation but omits significant behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a concise syntax hint. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter creation tool, the description covers the essential usage: what it does and how to specify the path. Given the low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention behavior on existing paths, but that is not critical for a basic create operation. The absence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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%: the 'path' parameter already has a description with examples ('Projects' or 'Projects/Alpha'). The description repeats the example and the '/' nesting rule, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description contributes no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new folder (mailbox) in Yahoo Mail'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_folders, get_message, or send_email, which all handle different operations. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 gives a clear context for when to use it (to create a folder) and includes a nested path example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the verb 'create' already contrasts with the sibling tools' operations. The context is clear, but explicit exclusion guidance is missing.

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