yapi_interface_add_cat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '新增' (add) implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 phrase '新增接口分类' (Add interface category), which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy. However, it's arguably too brief for a mutation tool with no annotations, potentially under-specifying critical context, but within the conciseness dimension, it's efficient.

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 (a mutation tool for adding categories in YAPI), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors (e.g., how categories relate to interfaces or projects). The schema covers parameters well, but for a write operation without annotations, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema (e.g., 'url' for parsing project/interface IDs, 'project' for optional project ID, 'name' for required category name, 'desc' for optional description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '新增接口分类' (Add interface category) states a clear verb ('新增' - add) and resource ('接口分类' - interface category), providing basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'interface category' means in the YAPI context and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'yapi_interface_get_cat_menu' or 'yapi_interface_list_menu' that might involve categories. The description is functional but lacks specificity about the system 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'yapi_interface_add' (for adding interfaces) or 'yapi_interface_get_cat_menu' (for getting category menus). Usage is implied only through the name and parameters, with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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