Create a folder

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

Annotations already signal that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing the folder_exists failure condition and the exact return shape, including fields like id, sort_order, and intake_count. It does not discuss permission requirements, but that is not a significant gap given 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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, immediately gives usage guidance with a sibling alternative, and closes with the failure mode and return shape. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter creation tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use, failure behavior, and return format. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by listing the returned object fields. Annotations cover safety and world-openness, and no critical information 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%, and the single 'name' parameter is well documented in the schema ('Must be unique in your account'). The description reinforces this with 'e.g. one per client' and mentions uniqueness implicitly via folder_exists, but it does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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 action ('Create a new folder'), a clear resource (folders for grouping intakes), and a concrete use case ('one per client'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_folders, and the title/description align without being tautological.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call list_folders first and reuse a matching folder — only create one when none of the existing folders fits.' It also explains the failure case ('Fails with folder_exists... use list_folders to find it instead'), giving an agent clear decision rules for when to invoke this tool versus its sibling.

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