Create Custom Taxonomy

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate it's a non-destructive mutation. The description adds important context: the taxonomy is persisted, returned with allocated UUIDs and version=1, and the default node constraint. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences long, each with a distinct purpose: purpose statement, constraint/guideline, and return value. No unnecessary words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by stating the return includes the taxonomy with UUIDs and version=1. It covers the creation logic, default node requirement, and tree structure. It could mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a creation tool with three parameters, it is sufficiently 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties. The description, however, adds value by explaining the tree structure and client_id/parent_client_id linking mechanism, which is not fully detailed in the schema. It also reiterates the is_default constraint in context.

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 'Create a custom classification taxonomy with its initial tree,' specifying the verb (create), resource (taxonomy), and the concept of an initial tree. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_custom_taxonomy or delete_custom_taxonomy. The mention of a default node further clarifies the unique behavior.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to create a taxonomy) and includes a critical constraint ('Exactly one node should have is_default=true'). It explains the purpose of the default node (fallback for classification). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like parse_custom_taxonomy_text, but the sibling list implies differentiation.

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