create_folder

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

With empty annotations, description fully covers behavior: recursive handled client-side, auto-creation on 400, no auto-creation by other tools, and API limitation (cannot list folders). Discloses that id must be saved for later use.

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 relatively long but every sentence adds value. It is well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details, then behavioral notes. Could be slightly more concise, but justified given complexity.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters (2 required), the description covers all necessary context: usage, parameter semantics, behavioral quirks, dependencies (rename_folder). Complete guidance for correct invocation.

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 descriptions, but the description adds significant context: explains name must be full path from root, recursive default true and client-side handling, projectKey defaults to environment variable. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 tool creates a Zephyr Scale folder for test cases, test plans, or test runs. It specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_test_case and create_test_run by noting they do not auto-create folders.

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 explicit guidance: when to use (before test case/run creation), name format (absolute path starting with /), recursive behavior, and hierarchical name convention. Also advises keeping the numeric id since the API cannot list folders, and notes rename_folder needs it.

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