create_category_or_project

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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing real behavioral traits: endpoint routing, Full Access Token requirement, the fact that /addProject ignores certain fields, and a critical corruption bug when project titles contain '#word'. It also notes that the client blocks the bug locally before any API call, which materially changes how an agent should behave. This is exceptional transparency for a mutation tool.

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 description is long and detailed, but nearly every sentence carries operational necessity for a high-risk create operation. It front-loads the core purpose and then organizes caveats by topic, ending with a clearly separated corruption-bug note. It is dense rather than bloated, and the detail is justified by the number of supported fields and edge cases.

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?

Given 15 parameters, only 2 required, a complex category-vs-project split, and minimal annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers auth requirements, field applicability, sibling-tool routing, unsupported fields, and a serious title-validation bug. With an output schema present, there is no need for the description to explain return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-parameter meaning: label_ids applies to both categories and projects, day/due_date/priority/frog are accepted by the API but meaningless for categories, and startDate/endDate are not settable at creation. These insights strengthen the interpretation of the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a category or project with color, icon, labels and note.' It also names the underlying endpoints (/doc/create and /addProject) and clarifies the nesting rule that distinguishes categories from projects. This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like update_category_or_project and create_task.

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 explicit guidance about when not to use this tool: startDate/endDate cannot be set at creation and should be handled with update_category_or_project afterwards, and project color must be set via update_category_or_project. It also explains why fields like day/due_date/priority/frog are not meaningful for categories. It does not explicitly contrast with create_task, but the dual resource name makes that boundary reasonably clear.

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