Assign or remove a 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; it does add one genuinely behavioral fact — that the running app refreshes automatically after the call — plus the implicit create-if-new on add. However it never says whether add and remove can be combined in one call, whether removal is destructive/reversible, or what permissions are needed, which are the key unknowns 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the add/remove duality and the write-path framing before the audience line. The phrase 'from the agent side' is slightly vague, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With three fully documented parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the essentials are covered. It is still thin on the interaction between the two optional mutation parameters and on failure semantics (removing a category that isn't applied), which matter more here because no annotations declare the safety profile.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the <type>:<id> format and valid types, giving a baseline of 3. The description earns above baseline by adding provenance — where to obtain valid targets (eve_recent/eve_search/eve_get_selection) — which the schema does not say.

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 pair (add/remove), the resource (categories on history entries), and explicitly positions itself as 'the write path' versus the read siblings eve_recent/eve_search/eve_get_selection. An agent can distinguish it from eve_categories or eve_search without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation: it is the agent-side write path for organizing entries into projects, and targets come from eve_recent/eve_search/eve_get_selection results. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing to eve_categories for discovering existing category names, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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