rm_create_expense_category

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

The description adds the operation type ('create') beyond annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as duplicate handling, uniqueness, permissions, or external side effects despite openWorldHint=true.

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 a single, tight sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter create operation, though it provides minimal structural elaboration.

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 simple create tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety profile, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main missing element is a usage hint, but the schema fills in most invocation details.

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?

There is one required 'name' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description only weakly implies that 'name' is the name of the new expense category, but does not explain expected format, constraints, uniqueness, or examples.

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 states a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('expense category'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like rm_create_expense and rm_create_tag. The verb-resource pairing 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_list_expense_categories or rm_delete_expense_category. There is no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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