yahoo_create_folder

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two defaults ('subscribe' defaults True and its client-visibility effect; account falls back to the file-marked default), but is silent on duplicate-name handling, required permissions/auth, error behavior, and idempotency 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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the per-argument notes are scoped tightly to one field each. It is slightly verbose with the multi-line separator explanation, but no sentence 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-value detail is not required, and all three parameters are covered. The remaining gap is behavioral: duplicate handling and auth/permission expectations are unstated, which matters more given the absence of annotations on a create operation.

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: 'name' gets nested-folder separator guidance with concrete examples, 'subscribe' explains its default and effect, and 'account' explains the key source and default behavior. This is genuinely additive, though 'account' formatting could be tightened.

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+resource ('Create a new mailbox folder'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like yahoo_list_folders or destructive ones like yahoo_empty_folder. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or contrast scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to check existing folders first via yahoo_list_folders, or how this relates to yahoo_empty_folder. The Args block describes inputs but never states conditions or alternatives, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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