vtex_create_category

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. 'Create a new category' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate names). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Create a new category'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'category' entails in VTEX, the expected return value, error handling, or usage context. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions (e.g., 'Category name', 'Parent category ID (null for root)'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new category' clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'category' means in this context (e.g., product category in VTEX) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_create_brand' or 'vtex_create_product' beyond the resource name. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing parent category IDs), when to use it over similar creation tools (like 'vtex_create_product'), or any exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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