create_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies mutation via 'Make'. It says nothing about whether an existing folder name causes an error or overwrite, what permissions or target scope are required, or whether the operation is reversible (undo/redo siblings exist but are not referenced). The output schema covers return values, but the write-side behavior is undisclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, and the resource and placement are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness is achieved partly by eliding the required 'name' parameter rather than by disciplined word choice.

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?

Four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 30 sibling tools demand far more than one sentence. The description never addresses the required name argument, duplicate-folder behavior, or how this differs from file_into_folders; only the output schema relieves it of documenting returns.

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 partly does: 'in order' adds meaningful ordering semantics for item_ids and 'target/index' explains the placement pair. Critically, the required parameter 'name' is never mentioned anywhere in the description, and 'index' is only implied by the slash notation rather than explained as the insertion position.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Make a folder') plus the placement convention ('at target/index') and contents ('holding item_ids'), which distinguishes it from rename_folder/dissolve_folder without naming them. It falls short of 5 only because it never explicitly frames itself against the crowded set of sibling placement tools (place_at, file_into_folders, arrange).

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, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from 'holding item_ids (in order)' that this is the creation path rather than file_into_folders or place_at, which is left entirely implicit.

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