folder_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses idempotency ('safe to call repeatedly, reuses existing folders') and the specific failure mode for AssetFolder ('errors clearly rather than no-op'ing'). It does not mention return values or side effects beyond creation, but that is not essential for this tool's usage. Overall, it provides key behavioral context beyond what a schema would offer.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first line immediately states the primary behavior and idempotency. The Args list is compact and directly addresses each parameter with necessary details. There is no fluff or redundant terminology; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the core behavior (find-or-create), the parameter formats and constraints, the failure mode for AssetFolder, and the idempotent nature. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of complex side effects, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so comprehensively: 'kind' is explained with valid values (EventFolder | AssetFolder) and a caveat about AssetFolder's non-creatability, while 'path' is defined with a format ('Slash-separated') and an example. This fully clarifies the meaning and constraints of both parameters, adding significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's function: 'Find-or-create a folder chain' with an example ('UI/HUD' resolves/creates UI then HUD). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from other folder-related tools by emphasizing creation and idempotency. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

While the description does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, it is clear from context that it is the designated tool for folder creation. The note that AssetFolder isn't creatable and errors clearly sets usage expectations. Since there is no other folder-create tool among siblings, the guidance is sufficient and implicit.

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