remarkable_create_folder

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

Annotations are minimal (no idempotent, no destructive hints), so the description carries burden. It discloses the parent-existence requirement and the one-level-at-a-time limitation. It does not state behavior on duplicate folder names or parent missing (e.g., error handling). It also omits the compact_output parameter's effect. This is a moderate gap.

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 well-structured with usecase, instructions, parameters, and examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. The examples are practical. No unnecessary fluff. Concise and efficient.

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 an output schema (not shown), so return format is presumably covered. However, the description misses the optional 'compact_output' parameter entirely, which affects how results are presented. It also does not mention failure conditions (e.g., if parent doesn't exist or folder already exists). For a simple tool, these are notable omissions.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It explains 'path' well with format and examples (full path or top-level name). However, it entirely ignores 'compact_output', which is present in the schema. Thus, one parameter is well-documented but the other is absent, leaving the agent without guidance on output format.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new empty folder') with a clear resource ('on your reMarkable'). It distinguishes from siblings (browse, rename, move, etc.) through the verb 'create' and the folder-specific context. Examples clarify usage. This is 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 a clear prerequisite: the parent folder must already exist, and it limits creation to one level at a time. It implies when to use (to create a folder) and the constraints. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no sibling is for creation, so the guidance is adequate.

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