Create a folder for flows

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

Annotations already signal this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it returns an id for later use, supports nesting, and warns that names are not unique. It does not disclose error conditions or authorization, but for a simple creation tool with annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action leads, then nesting behavior, return value, and an important warning. Perfectly front-loaded for an agent to scan quickly.

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 two-parameter create tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, return value, and a key prerequisite. It stops short of giving examples or failure cases, but the tool is simple enough that everything is reasonable. Not quite a 5 because it could explicitly state the action is non-idempotent or mention name uniqueness confirmation, though it is fairly complete.

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 both 'name' and 'parent' are described in the schema. The description adds only minimal extra parameter context (e.g., 'optionally inside another one' for parent, and a warning about name uniqueness). It does not deeply enrich the parameters, so 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a folder to organise flows in'. It also clarifies the optional nesting behavior and distinguishes itself from sibling flow/script creators by noting it creates folders. The return-value mention ('Returns the id, which is what homey_flow_move takes') reinforces its role.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance with the action itself, and notably warns to check homey_flow_folders_list first to avoid duplicate names. It does not explicitly list alternative tools (e.g., update/delete) or when not to use it, but the duplicate-name check is a strong pragmatic guideline.

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