category_assign

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating profile is covered structurally; the description's [WRITE] tag is largely redundant with that. What it adds is the risk=medium qualifier and the "Bulk" nature of the operation. It does not say what happens to pre-existing category assignments, whether the call is synchronous or task-backed, or what permissions are required.

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 operation tag and one-line purpose are front-loaded, followed by a compact Arg list with no filler. It reads as a docstring restatement rather than prose, but nothing is wasted and the size matches the tool's simplicity.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the description documents every parameter and defers safety to the annotations. However, it omits operationally relevant facts: error behavior on invalid extIds, whether the result is a task (task_list exists), and whether the change is reversible given undo_list/undo_apply are available siblings.

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 carries the full burden — and it does document all three parameters, including the origin of category_ext_id and vm_ext_ids and the fact that target may be omitted for the default. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Bulk-associate a category to a set of VMs," which is clearly distinct from siblings like category_create, category_list, and vm_update. The [WRITE][risk=medium] prefix sets operation type up front. It never names an alternative sibling, so full marks for differentiation are not earned.

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?

Usage is implied through ID provenance ("as returned by category_list," "from vm_list"), which sketches the list-then-assign workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as vm_update or category_create, so the guidance stops at inference.

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