unmark_floor_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain the semantics change (ceiling-type, less spend is good), but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or whether the category must already be floor-marked. This is adequate but leaves gaps 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Revert'. It contains no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 required param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description conveys the core action and semantic outcome. However, it omits details about what happens if the category doesn't exist or isn't marked, and there is no mention of return values or errors. These gaps are notable but not fatal given the simplicity.

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 schema has a single required 'name' parameter with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description refers to 'a category' but does not explicitly state that 'name' is the category name. While the tool name strongly implies this, the description does not formally compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Revert') and a specific resource ('a category') while explaining the semantic effect ('to ordinary ceiling-type semantics (less spend is good)'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'mark_floor_category' and makes the action unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you want to undo a floor marking) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It does not mention that this is the inverse of 'mark_floor_category' or that it should only be used on categories currently marked as floor.

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