Create Report or Dashboard Folder

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what each access type (Hidden, Shared, Public) means, which goes beyond the schema's enum values. It also notes that sharing is a separate operation, providing useful behavioral guidance. It doesn't contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It packs useful information—access types and a follow-up sharing step—without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately concise and structurally sound.

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 four parameters, two enums, and no output schema, the description covers the key points: purpose, access type meanings, and the next step for sharing. It does not explicitly mention return values or prerequisites, but given the clear schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A score of 4 reflects the minor gap about return values while acknowledging the strong coverage of behavior.

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%, with all four parameters described. The description adds value by defining the accessType enum values (Hidden=only owner, Shared=explicit sharing, Public=all users), which the schema only lists without meaning. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions and helps an agent understand the parameter's behavior.

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 'Creates a folder for organizing Reports or Dashboards,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sf_create_report and sf_create_dashboard (which create actual reports/dashboards) and from sf_share_report_folder (which handles sharing). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from similar tools.

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 provides context by explaining folder access types and explicitly directs users to 'use sf_share_report_folder to grant access' after creation, which clarifies when to use that alternative. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare with creating reports/dashboards, but the intended usage is clear enough for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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