signavio_create_dictionary_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, error conditions, or the response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately front-loaded and doesn't include unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or what to expect upon success (e.g., returns a category ID). While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to siblings that involve mutations like signavio_delete_dictionary_entry.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (name, color, order, parentCategory). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'order' in display or how 'parentCategory' structures hierarchies. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with any additional semantic context.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new dictionary category'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like signavio_get_dictionary_categories (read vs. write) and signavio_update_dictionary_entry (update vs. create), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more precise about what a 'dictionary category' entails in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when creation is appropriate (e.g., for organizing dictionary entries), or refer to related tools like signavio_get_dictionary_categories for viewing existing categories. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Create,' leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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