Create or update a workspace category to organize documents; requires full workspace write access, as category-scoped credentials cannot manage categories.
Create or update a workspace category. Full workspace write access is required; category-scoped credentials cannot manage categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the credential scope requirement, a failure mode the annotations do not capture. It stops short of saying what an update overwrites or that the operation is not idempotent, so it is not a 5.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the action stated first and the constraint second. No filler, no restating of the title, nothing that fails to earn 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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add purpose and any non-obvious constraints, both of which it does. The one gap is that it does not clarify partial-update behavior for the update branch, but for a tool of this complexity that is a minor omission.
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 100%, and the oneOf branches document action, name, id, and order with their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only refers generically to 'create or update' and adds no format, ordering, or partial-update semantics beyond that.
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 pair and resource ('Create or update a workspace category'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from delete_category and save_tag/save_folder. It does not, however, explicitly call out that it is the only category-writing sibling, so sibling routing is inferential.
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 a real prerequisite (full workspace write access; category-scoped credentials cannot manage categories), which is useful context for when the call will succeed. It never names alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over delete_category or save_tag, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.