qui_create_category

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. It only says 'Call ... endpoint,' which is an instruction rather than a behavior disclosure. The POST method implies creation, but the description doesn't state that a category will be created, whether it overwrites, what happens on duplicate, or any security considerations.

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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the endpoint and method. However, it's so minimal that it sacrifices substance for brevity, providing only a generic pattern applicable to all endpoints.

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 it's a creation endpoint with an open schema and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain the purpose, required body payload, path parameters, expected response, or potential errors. An agent would not know how to use this tool correctly without external knowledge of the API.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It explains the general pattern (path variables in arguments, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), but doesn't specify which path variables (e.g., instanceID) or what fields the body requires. This is a generic template, not adequate for constructing a valid create_category request.

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 identifies the specific endpoint (POST /instances/{instanceID}/categories) and method, which clearly targets category creation. However, it expresses the purpose in HTTP terms rather than domain language ('create a category'), leaving some inference required. The name helps disambiguate from siblings like qui_get_categories and qui_edit_category.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this creates a new category, no prerequisites, no mention of using qui_edit_category for updates, or any scenario for choosing this tool. It's just an HTTP call instruction.

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