create_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: it uses the [WRITE] marker, cites the POST /v1/categories API, details the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message, category), and lists side effects including the addition of a category record and potential error if parent_id doesn't exist. This goes beyond minimal disclosure, though it omits auth requirements and reversibility.

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 well-structured into sections (purpose, API, response, side effects), with every sentence contributing directly to understanding the tool. There is no redundant verbiage or unnecessary repetition.

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 create operation with one parameter, the description covers purpose, API, return structure, and side effects, and highlights the main error condition. It is nearly complete, though it could mention required permissions or other common error scenarios like duplicate names.

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% and the schema description already includes the example for category_data, so the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. The side-effect note about parent_id is useful but not focused on parameter meaning, resulting in a baseline score.

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 creates a new product category in Shopline ('建立新商品分類') and specifies it can assign a parent category for hierarchy. This unambiguous verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like update_category and delete_category.

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?

It provides clear usage context by stating the purpose is to create a new category and optionally set a parent. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient for a straightforward create operation; it also warns about parent_id errors, which helps avoid misuse.

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