create_category_or_project

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

Annotations mark it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing endpoint divergence (/doc/create vs /addProject), live-verified field-ignoring behavior, and a client-side local block that prevents the '#word' corruption bug before any API call. Minor gap: it does not spell out permissions/auth for the project path or what the response contains, though an output schema exists.

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 action and the category/project split, then ordered by caveat severity (field rejection → creation-time ignores → title corruption bug). It is long and mildly redundant, since the schema already labels several fields 'Projects ONLY', so parts of the body repeat structured data.

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 15-parameter creation tool with two divergent API backends, the description supplies the cross-parameter rules, the workaround path (update afterwards), and the title validation rule that no other field covers. Annotations and the output schema handle the safety and return-value halves, so 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%, yet the description adds cross-field semantics the schema cannot express: day/due_date/priority/frog are structurally meaningless for categories, label_ids applies to both kinds, and startDate/endDate are silently ignored at creation. These are genuine usage-critical constraints beyond per-parameter text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair and immediately disambiguates the two modes ('Create a category (via /doc/create...) or a project (via /addProject)'), which is exactly the distinction an agent needs given both live behind one tool name. It also states the containment rule (categories can contain categories; projects cannot), separating it from sibling tools like create_task and create_event.

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?

Gives clear conditional routing for the two kinds and explicitly redirects to update_category_or_project for startDate/endDate that cannot be set at creation. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over create_task/create_event or note prerequisites such as the Full Access Token requirement beyond the parenthetical mention of it for /doc/create.

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