Create Data Category Group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the purpose (classification and visibility controls) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as what happens on duplicate names, or permission requirements. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter summary. The parameter list partially duplicates the schema but is compact enough to serve as a quick reference, earning a 4 rather than a 5 for slight 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?

Given the full schema coverage and annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description provides sufficient context for invoking the tool. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a metadata creation tool with rich structured metadata, this is acceptable and not a major gap.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful clarification by summarizing key parameters and emphasizing that 'categories' are top-level with optional sub-categories. This aids comprehension beyond the raw schema definitions, especially for the nested structure.

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: 'Creates a Data Category Group with categories for classifying Salesforce Knowledge articles, solutions, or cases.' It uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('Data Category Group'), and the mention of hierarchical content classification distinguishes it from other metadata creation tools among the siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Data categories enable hierarchical content classification and visibility controls.' This implies its use for Salesforce Knowledge classification scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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