folders_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: idempotency, the exact rejection set (empty names, null bytes, leading separators, `..` segments) with the isError outcome, the disk mkdir side effect with the note that no DB rows are written until a file lands inside, and the absence of auth or rate limits.

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?

Dense but tightly front-loaded: purpose first, then idempotency, then rejections, then side effects, then return shape. Every clause carries distinct operational information and none is filler.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, validation failures, side effects, and the return shape `{path, base_path}`, which is exactly what an agent needs to call this correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by adding semantics the schema lacks: that passing a `project_id` is actively refused (not merely ignored) and that nested-path segments are validated against `..` traversal.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a folder in the KB) and immediately scopes it by declaring that a `project_id` is refused because kxta never writes into a project repo. This distinguishes it from siblings like folders_list, folders_delete, and files_create without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Gives clear conditions: nested paths like `notes/inbox` are supported and create intermediates, and project_id is refused. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g., where to put files once the folder exists), so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not routing.

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