yapi_add_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It does not disclose whether a category with a duplicate name is rejected, whether authentication or project permissions are required, or whether the new category's ID is returned. Only the bare creation intent is conveyed.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a consequence of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, duplicate/conflict behavior, and any indication of what the caller receives or can do next with the created category.

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 description coverage is 100%, with name, project_id and desc all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource combination: '新增接口分类' (add interface category) within 'YAPI 项目' (a YAPI project). This is far more specific than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as yapi_add_interface, which also creates content in the same domain, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 create a category versus using yapi_get_interface_cat_list to inspect existing ones, nor any prerequisite such as the project existing or naming conflicts. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be chosen.

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