create_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait: the category group must pre-exist, and the group name is resolved by partial match. However, it says nothing about uniqueness of names, permissions/auth, side effects on the enclosing group, or failure behavior when the group is not found.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the prerequisite/constraint is front-loaded ahead of the alternative routing. Every clause earns 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?

For a create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical prerequisite and the group-name resolution path, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. It stops short of describing duplicate-name handling or error outcomes, but return values need not be explained since no output schema exists.

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%, so all three parameters (name, budget_id, category_group_name) are already documented in the schema, including the partial-match semantics and the 'last-used' default. The description adds only the discovery path for category_group_name, which is marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a new category') plus a constraint that distinguishes it from the sibling create_category_group: the group must already exist. An agent can differentiate it from create_category_group and list_categories without opening any schema.

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 names the prerequisite ('Use list_categories first to find the category_group_name') and routes to the alternative when the prerequisite can't be met ('or create one with create_category_group'). This is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance the dimension asks for.

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