Create folder

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: "a denial means the API key lacks this tool's scope, not a tool failure." It also notes the need for bucketName. However, it does not disclose what happens if the folder already exists, whether the operation is idempotent (though annotations mark idempotentHint=false), or what the successful response contains. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar for extra disclosure, but some gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states the purpose immediately; the second adds necessary prerequisite and error-context details without redundancy. Every clause contributes value, and there is no wasted wording.

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 a simple create-folder operation, no output schema, and annotations cover safety flags. The description explains the prerequisite (bucketName) and error interpretation, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not mention the return value or behavior on duplicate folders, which would help the agent fully model the operation. Still, it is more complete than many tools at this complexity level.

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%, with each parameter (name, bucketName, parentPath) already described in the input schema. The description does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 a new folder at the given path in a drive." This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file or delete_files. The mention of 'given path' adds precision.

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 key prerequisite: "Requires the drive (bucketName)," and explains the meaning of authorization denials. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools, such as when to choose create_folder over upload_file or browse_folder. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for non-use.

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