create_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Create' aligns with those. The description adds the nuance of optional nesting under parent_folder_id, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other aspects like permission requirements, uniqueness constraints, or return side effects beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence that states the purpose and the key option. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero redundant words or 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?

The tool is straightforward (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits any mention of return value or error conditions. For a create operation, users would benefit from knowing whether it returns the created folder object or just an ID. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description remains too sparse to be complete for even a simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to parent_folder_id by explaining it enables nesting, but it does not explain 'name' beyond the schema's title. Since 'name' is self-explanatory as a string, the description provides at least partial parameter semantics, but not complete compensation for the lack of coverage.

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's action ('Create a mail folder') and its scope ('optionally nested under parent_folder_id'). This specific verb+resource pattern distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_folder and rename_folder.

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 implies usage by context—this is the tool for creating folders—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude other cases. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer rename_folder or delete_folder. The nesting detail hints at one use case but provides no exclusionary guidance.

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