category_create

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, which is useful framing, but says nothing about what the operation affects, permission requirements, or behavior when the key/value already exists. 'risk=medium' also sits slightly awkwardly beside destructiveHint=true, though it is not a direct contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and risk tag, followed by a tight Args block with no filler. The bracketed tag and indented list are compact and scannable, though the tag duplicates information partly conveyed by annotations.

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 non-idempotent destructive write with no output schema, the description covers inputs but omits outcome semantics: no mention of what is returned, what happens on a duplicate key, or whether the new category is scoped to a tenant/cluster. The Args block is complete, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: all four params are documented, with concrete examples for key/value ('Environment'/'Production') and a clear explanation of target ('Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default'). It does not cover format constraints or max lengths, but the semantic gaps are filled.

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: 'Create a category key/value pair,' which is unambiguous and clearly a mutation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like category_list or category_assign, so an agent must infer where it sits in the category workflow.

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 never says when to use this tool versus category_assign or category_list, nor mentions prerequisites (e.g. whether the category must exist before assigning, or that key/value creates it). Only the Args block is provided, which documents inputs rather than usage context.

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