mark_floor_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the category meaning but does not disclose what 'mark' does operationally (e.g., whether it overwrites, persists, errors on missing categories, or requires any permissions).

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action and defines the specialized terminology with an illustrative example. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one string parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and key semantic distinction. However, it lacks explicit usage/parameter detail and operational behavior, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond referring to 'a category'. It omits details like whether the name must match an existing category, case sensitivity, or format expectations.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('category'), then defines the key concept ('floor-type', 'MORE spend is good') with a concrete example (Investments). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling unmark_floor_category and other category tools.

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 a clear semantic condition for use: categories where more spending is beneficial, opposite of all other ceiling-type categories. This implies when to apply versus not, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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