Create a category to file prompts under

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only one level of nesting is allowed, the source is always `manual` and never a PromptEye proposal, and a same-name sibling at the same level is refused. That uniqueness and nesting constraint is the kind of thing annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the parent/nesting rule, then the source guarantee and duplicate refusal. Every sentence carries distinct information, though it is denser than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: nesting depth limit, the forced `manual` source, the duplicate-name refusal, and the follow-up tool for filing prompts. Nothing material is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: parentCategoryId must reference an existing top-level category and produces a subcategory with a one-level nesting cap. That constraint is not stated in the schema.

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 ('Adds a category the active project can file prompts under') and immediately distinguishes itself from the list_categories sibling by describing the write action. An agent knows this creates a category rather than reading or updating one.

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?

Explicitly says to pass an existing top-level category as parentCategoryId to make a subcategory and that omitting it creates a top-level category, and it names update_prompt with categoryId as the route for filing existing prompts. No explicit 'when not to use', but the conditional usage is clear.

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