create_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: idempotency, rejection criteria (empty names, null bytes, leading separators, '..'), side effects (disk mkdir, no DB rows until file lands), and no external auth/rate limits. This is exceptionally transparent about behavior and consequences.

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 appropriately sized, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds crucial operational details (idempotency, rejections, side effects, return value) without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description discloses the return shape ({path, base_path}) and covers edge cases, side effects, and constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently without additional documentation.

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 clarifying nested path behavior ('notes/inbox' creates intermediates), which enriches the 'name' parameter beyond its schema description. It also implies project_id semantics ('project root vs KB'), adding contextual meaning.

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 the tool 'Create a folder under a project root or the KB', with a specific verb (create) and resource (folder), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_file and delete_folder. The mention of idempotency and nested path handling further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (under a project root or KB, with nested path support) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_files. The idempotent behavior and rejection cases implicitly guide usage, though no explicit 'use this instead of X' statement exists.

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