drive_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. It excellently discloses the idempotent behavior (returns existing folder if duplicate name), which is a non-obvious and critical behavioral trait. It also explicitly states limitations (cannot rename, move, delete, upload, share), giving the agent a clear picture of what it cannot do. This goes beyond what any schema could convey.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then immediately gives the key behavioral nuance (idempotency) and a brief list of exclusions. Every word earns its place, and it is highly scannable.

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 tool with 3 parameters (all documented in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors and limitations. It lacks information about the return value (what the created or found folder object looks like) and possible permissions or auth requirements, but given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these are not strictly required. It is fairly complete for safe invocation, though a bit more about return format would push it to 5.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter (name, account, parentId). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format or examples for parentId. It does mention default behavior ('Defaults to root') which is in the schema. Since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('folder in Google Drive'), and goes beyond a simple definition by specifying the idempotent behavior (returns existing folder if name already exists under parent). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like drive_create_spreadsheet and drive_move_file. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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?

It clearly states what the tool does (create a folder) and implies when to use it for folder creation. It also explicitly lists what it cannot do (rename, move, delete, upload, share), effectively excluding those use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for operations like moving or renaming, though these are evident from the sibling list. The exclusions are valuable but could be more explicitly tied to alternatives.

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