Create a folder

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added context is that the folder is scoped to the authenticated workspace; it says nothing about the confirm gate, permission requirements, or what happens on repeat calls. That small scoping detail earns a 3 rather than a 2.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, restated name, or redundant phrasing. Nothing to trim.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested payload object, three mutually exclusive body-passing modes (payload, flat flags, payload_file), a required confirm flag, and no output schema, one generic sentence leaves the agent guessing. Nothing explains the body-mode duality, the confirm requirement, or plan-gated accessLevel values.

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 schema itself documents name, accessLevel, description, account, confirm, payload and payload_file, including the enum on accessLevel. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 sentence names a specific verb (Create) and resource (folder) plus a scope (the authenticated workspace), so the agent knows exactly what operation it is. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like update_folder/delete_folder or list_folders, but the name already carries that distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as upserting or updating an existing folder. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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