Add Category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. It mentions the resource but lacks details on what happens upon creation (e.g., returns an ID, affects wallet state), making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what the tool returns, error conditions) and usage context, which are critical for an agent to invoke it correctly. The schema covers parameters well, but overall guidance is inadequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (walletId, name, icon, type) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying creation, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new transaction category in a wallet'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'edit_category' or 'get_categories', which would require mentioning uniqueness such as 'new' creation versus modification or retrieval.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_category' or 'delete_category'. The description implies usage for creation but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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