add_category_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core matching logic and the assignment action. However, it does not state whether the rule applies retroactively to existing transactions, whether duplicate rules are allowed, or if there are any side effects beyond future categorization, leaving some opacity.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and includes the essential condition. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and rule behavior sufficiently, but it omits potential edge cases like rule conflicts, retroactivity, and output/confirmation. The absence of annotations and output schema requires more context than provided.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of match_text (substring to match) and category (value to assign), which adds relational meaning beyond parameter names. However, it lacks format examples, case sensitivity, or validation rules.

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 action (Add a categorization rule) with a specific condition-action logic: if merchant/name contains match_text, assign category. This defines the exact resource and behavior, distinguishing it from sibling list_category_rules.

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 context (adding a rule when you want transactions with a certain merchant/name substring categorized), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides the rule's triggering condition, but no guidance about updating or removing rules or comparing with listing tools.

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