create_drive_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether creation is idempotent, what happens if a folder with the same name exists, or any permission requirements. The description is too minimal to convey behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. While it could benefit from additional context, it is efficiently structured and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though more detail would improve utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description does not mention the return value (e.g., folder ID), error conditions, or side effects. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding of the tool's 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The user_id description has a trailing 'Choose from: ' but no enumeration, which is a minor gap but schema still explains it.

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') and the resource ('a new folder in Google Drive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_drive_folder or rename_drive_folder. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as creating files or using existing folders. It does not specify prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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