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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them – it never says what gets overwritten, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what permissions are required for a destructive mutation.

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 two sentences are near-duplicates that convey the same idea, so the second adds no information while consuming space. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading of useful content.

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 destructive 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum convey which fields can be changed and what the operation affects. Annotations cover the safety signal, but the description leaves the agent with nothing actionable beyond the tool's name.

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 9 parameters (including required portal_slug and category_id) documented individually in the schema. The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 restates the tool name and title almost verbatim ('Update a category. Update a category of a portal.'), which is a tautology. It adds only the trivial scoping detail that the category belongs to a portal, with no indication of what aspects get updated or how it differs from siblings like delete_category or list_categories.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools (e.g. list_categories to find an ID, delete_category for removal). The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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