Create a new budget category within an existing category group to organize transactions. Provide a category name and group to enable structured budget tracking.
Create a new budget category within a category group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new category | |
| group | Yes | Category group name or ID to add this category to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false indicating a write operation. The description 'Create a new budget category' aligns with this but adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of side effects, permission requirements, or interactions with related data. Since the bar is lower with annotations present, the description still fails to provide any extra transparency.
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 clean sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and scope, making it easy to scan. Every word 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 simple create operation with two parameters, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit note about prerequisites (e.g., group existence), but given the straightforward nature and the existing schema, it covers the core need. A few extra words about the group being pre-existing would make it fully complete.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add further explanation about parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the baseline of 3. The schema already explains name and group sufficiently.
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 uses a clear verb 'create' with a specific resource 'new budget category within a category group'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_category_group (which creates the group itself) and update_category (which modifies existing categories). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the category group must already exist). An agent has to infer that this is for adding a category to an existing group.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.