Create a category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the content.write authorization requirement and the three-level nesting ceiling, both of which shape whether the call is legal. It still omits duplicate-slug behavior and error semantics.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the most consequential facts (hierarchy limit, required grant) front-loaded rather than buried. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers scope and authorization but leaves the agent guessing about return value, duplicate-handling, and the undocumented name/slug/description fields. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for parentId ('a subsection of one when you pass parentId', plus the three-level depth limit), but name, slug, and description remain undocumented in both places, and nothing explains slug generation or uniqueness.

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 defines the resource precisely (a blog section, or a subsection when parentId is supplied) and the title/name supply the create verb. It is clear against siblings like update_category and delete_category, though the description text itself never states the creating action and doesn't name those siblings.

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?

It gives a real prerequisite ('Requires the content.write grant') and a structural constraint ('three levels deep at most'), which tell the agent when the call will succeed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose create_category versus update_category or list_categories — usage is only implied.

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