Create zone categories

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), it discloses that the operation runs in one undo step, that a failing item does not stop the others, and that results come back in input order. These are genuinely useful behavioral traits not present in the structured fields.

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 core action and field list, followed by fallback behavior, undo semantics, return shape and localization note. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the return-value sentence is somewhat compacted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description usefully documents the return structure, partial-failure behavior, and the Russian localization caveat. It covers the main gaps an agent would otherwise face, though it does not discuss permission or rate-limit considerations.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the description compensates by explaining the stamp/basedOn interaction: without 'stamp' the zone stamp and its parameters are copied from 'basedOn' or the project's first zone category. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 (creates zone categories) and enumerates the fields it accepts. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_zones by clarifying that the created category is then assigned to zones via the zone tools' category field.

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 concrete operational guidance: look up existing attributes with get_attributes first, and use the zone tools' category field to assign. The stamp fallback rule is explained. No explicit when-not-to-use or full alternative routing, but the context is clear.

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