save_parent_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the upsert behavior (with primary key = update), which is a key behavioral trait. It also lists the entity fields, giving some transparency about what data is used. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or what happens on failure. The upsert disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and endpoint. The field list is dense but useful. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the field list from the behavior), but it's efficient and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the endpoint, upsert behavior, and the entity fields. However, it lacks details on field semantics (e.g., what 'hide' means, valid categoryType values), required sub-fields, and any side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single parameter 'entity', which is described as '一级分类对象' (parent category object). The description adds meaning by enumerating the entity's fields (categoryId, categoryName, iconUrl, positionWeight, hide, categoryType), which is helpful since the schema's entity is loosely defined with additionalProperties. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of each field (e.g., what 'hide' does, what categoryType values are valid), so it adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating or updating a top-level category (一级分类), and explicitly mentions the underlying endpoint and upsert behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_child_category and delete_parent_category by specifying it handles parent categories. However, it doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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: use this tool when you need to add or update a parent category, and the upsert note (with primary key for update) gives a clear condition for update vs create. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like save_child_category. The context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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