ghl_course_create_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — required OAuth scope, sub-account token requirement, endpoint and API version header, and the validation constraint that certain body fields are rejected. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate titles or what the response contains.

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 action and the productId clarification are front-loaded, but the auth requirement is stated three times in near-duplicate form ("Requires a Location token with courses.write", "Requires a Sub-Account (location) token", "OAuth scopes: courses.write"), and the endpoint/version/source line is boilerplate. Tightening would improve signal-to-noise.

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?

With three required params, a nested body, and no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned (e.g. the created category including its id) for follow-up calls like ghl_course_sequence_categories. Auth, endpoint, and body constraints are covered, but the result side is silent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by identifying productId as the course/product id (schema only says "Product id") and by noting that title is the required body field while locationId/userId/productId/originId must not be sent in the body. That materially reduces misuse of the nested body object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a category in a course") and immediately disambiguates the {productId} path parameter as the course/product id, which separates it from the many course-category siblings such as get/update/delete/list_category and create_lesson. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 gives useful preconditions (Sub-Account/Location token, courses.write scope) and negative guidance about body fields (locationId, userId, productId, originId not accepted), but never says when to choose this over alternatives like ghl_course_update_category or ghl_course_create_lesson, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied by the operation name rather than stated.

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