clickup_create_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 indicates a create/mutation operation and restates the override_statuses flag, but says nothing about required permissions, idempotency, duplicate-name handling, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 four short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sibling reference earns its place by clarifying the workflow.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the main parameter choice and the after-creation workflow. However, it omits key context such as permission requirements, side effects, or what the created folder response contains, and it does not mention the workspace_id parameter despite the schema covering it.

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 five parameters, including the space_id preference and override_statuses semantics. The description repeats the space_id-vs-space_name choice but adds no format, constraint, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create folder in ClickUp space.' It also distinguishes the workflow from the similar 'clickup_create_list_in_folder' sibling by noting that lists are added after folder creation. It is clear but not as sharply differentiated as the highest-scoring examples.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on how to identify the target space ('Use space_id (preferred) or space_name + folder name') and points to the sibling tool for the next step. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context for use is clear.

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