yapi_create_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the login requirement and the category-selection fallback when catId is omitted, which is useful context. However, it does not describe side effects, dryRun behavior, or what happens after creation.

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 uses three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the login prerequisite and the catId fallback rule.

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 an 11-parameter, mutation-oriented tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It covers login and category selection but omits important behaviors around dryRun, projectId, and the write operation's effects, leaving an agent under-informed for safe invocation.

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 55%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for catId: omitting it selects 公共分类, otherwise the first category. Yet many parameters, especially dryRun, projectId, and resBodyIsJsonSchema, remain undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action ('新建接口' = create interface) and resource ('指定 YApi 项目' = specified YApi project), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate against sibling tools, but the creation intent is readily distinguishable from the mock-update and search 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 implies usage when creating a new interface in a YApi project and gives practical guidance about login requirements and catId fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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