Create Folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation action and some organizational aspects (nesting, sidebar section), but doesn't address important behavioral traits like: what permissions are required, whether folder creation is reversible (can folders be deleted?), what happens if a folder with the same ID already exists, or what the response format looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides important usage context for two key parameters. There's no wasted language or redundancy, and the most critical information appears first.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers the basic creation action and two parameters but leaves critical gaps: no information about required permissions, error conditions, response format, or the purpose of most parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially succeeds. It explains parent_id ('to nest inside another folder (null for root level)') and section ('determines which sidebar section the folder appears in'), covering 2 of 6 parameters. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of graph_id, folder_id, label, or order parameters, leaving most parameters without semantic context beyond their schema titles.

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 action ('Create a new folder') and the resource ('in the workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_graph' by specifying folder creation rather than graph creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'move_folder' or 'rename_folder' which also involve folder operations.

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 some implicit usage guidance by explaining how to use parent_id for nesting and mentioning the section parameter for sidebar placement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_folder' for reorganizing existing folders or 'create_graph' for creating different resource types. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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