sch_create_folder

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the subscribe default and the account default resolution, but says nothing about idempotency if the folder already exists, permission requirements, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, and the Args block is structured and dense. It is documentation-styled rather than terse, but every line adds information, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three input parameters are covered. The remaining gap is mutation-specific behavior (permissions, duplicate handling), which is a modest omission for a simple create tool.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains all three parameters, the nested-folder separator convention with examples, the subscribe default (True), and how 'account' maps to credentials.json. This is meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new mailbox folder'), which is unambiguous and distinct from read-only siblings like sch_list_folders. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other folder operations, but the purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is largely implied rather than stated – no when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives. The Args block does give practical guidance (separator conventions for nested folders, account default resolution), which nudges it above pure inference.

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