signavio_create_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new folder', implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns folder ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary context for effective use. It's front-loaded but incomplete.

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 the tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies. For a folder creation tool in a modeling environment, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'parentId'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('folder'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of folder (e.g., in Signavio's modeling environment) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_create_dictionary_category' or 'signavio_create_model', which also create resources. The purpose is clear but generic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., after getting root folders), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating models). The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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