create_cost_category

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already signal this is a mutating, non-idempotent write, and the description's 'Create' is consistent with them. The description adds the prerequisite/ordering context between category and cost centre, which is useful. However, it does not disclose duplicate-name behavior, failure modes, or the need for a prior set_company call, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and each additional element — the parenthetical example and the prerequisite note — earns its place by disambiguating the concept and guiding when to call.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter create with no nested objects and a fully documented schema. However, there is no output schema and the description says nothing about return values, duplicate-name behavior, or the write-confirmation workflow hinted at by the preview_write and confirm_write siblings — clear gaps an agent must guess at.

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% — all three parameters (name, allocateToRevenue, allocateToNonRevenue) are already documented with types and defaults in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Cost Category in TallyPrime') and clarifies the domain concept with concrete examples ('grouping of cost centres, e.g. Branch, Project'). This actively distinguishes it from the sibling create_cost_centre by defining the containment relationship between category and centre.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Required before creating a cost centre under a category that doesn't exist yet.' This effectively tells an agent when this tool is the right choice, implying the alternative (proceeding with create_cost_centre) when the category already exists. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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