create_folder

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate this is not read-only), the description explains important behavioral nuances: omitted type defaults to 'folder' at root but 'suite' when nested, suites cannot be parents, and suites always require parentId. It also discloses the return value shape. This adds meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence adds actionable detail: creation action, type semantics, default behavior, parent constraint, return value, and reading/list alternatives. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 that there is no output schema, this description sufficiently covers the return values and key constraints. It explains core creation rules, the parentId requirement for suites, the role of 'folder' vs 'suite', and directs users to get_folder/list_folders for reads. This gives an agent what it needs to invoke the tool correctly in different scenarios.

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 already documents all four parameters with high coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds useful semantic clarity on top, particularly around the 'type' default behavior and the requirement that a suite needs parentId. This helps an agent reason about valid parameter combinations beyond simple field definitions.

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 a concrete verb and resource: 'Create a folder or a suite in a project.' It distinguishes the purpose of suites vs folders and differentiates itself from sibling tools by name ('get_folder', 'list_folders'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use 'suite' vs 'folder', explains the default type behavior at root vs nested, and states when parentId is required. It also names sibling tools for reading and listing existing folders, making the appropriate context for this tool unambiguous.

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