create_folder

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful placement behavior ('Without parent the folder is created at the project root') and clarifies the accepted forms for parent, but it does not mention permissions, conflict/overwrite behavior, or what the caller can expect as a result. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 compact and each sentence contributes a distinct fact: the operation, required inputs, optional parent alternatives, and the root-level default. There is no filler, and the most important information is 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 straightforward creation tool with a fully described input schema and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation contract: required fields, optional parent resolution, and the root fallback. The only notable gaps are expected return shape and error/conflict behavior, which are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and even notes that parent can be used instead of parentId. The description repeats the required/optional split and rephrases parent's accepted forms as 'folder ID, name, or path,' which improves readability but adds little semantic information beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete action and object: 'Create an AIO test case folder.' It clearly identifies the resource as a folder and separates it from sibling tools like create_case or get_aio_folder, while also stating the minimum identifiers needed to perform the operation.

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 explicitly marks required vs optional inputs: 'Required: projectKey, name. Optional: parentId or parent' and explains the default behavior when no parent is supplied. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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