category_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' but does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, or requirements (e.g., auth, duplicate handling). The tool is clearly a mutation, but the description adds no further 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it lacks any note on behavior like idempotency or constraints, which 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'name' and 'type', including an enum for type. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already defines, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource 'category', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like category_list and category_get. The scope 'in Toshl Finance' adds context, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description implies this tool is for creating a new category, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like category_list or category_get. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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