create_category_groupCreate an empty category group in a YNAB budget by providing a group name, enabling organized budget categories.
Create an empty category group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Group name, at most 50 characters (required) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique category group identifier | |
| name | Yes | Category group name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'empty' detail — nothing about name uniqueness, error behavior on duplicates, or limits beyond the schema's 50-character cap.
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?
One short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. There is no wasted text and nothing is buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation profile. However, for a create operation the description leaves open practical questions (uniqueness of name, where the group surfaces) that a slightly longer description could close.
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% and the single 'name' parameter is documented with a 50-character limit, so the schema carries the semantics. The description contributes nothing about the name beyond what is already structured; 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 ('Create ... category group'), and the qualifier 'empty' signals that no categories are included at creation. It does not contrast with siblings like create_category or rename_category_group, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_category (which presumably also needs a group) or how it fits with list_category_groups. The agent must infer that a group must exist before categories can be assigned to it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.