pennylane_update_category

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description usefully adds PATCH semantics — "Seuls les champs fournis sont mis à jour" — clarifying that omitted fields are left intact, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of auth, rate-limit, or side-effect detail, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then the partial-update constraint. No filler, nothing redundant, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 simple 4-parameter update with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies the one non-obvious trait — partial update semantics. It is nearly complete, with usage context the only real gap.

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%, so the schema already documents id, label, direction (with its cash_in/cash_out values), and analytical_code. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ("Modifie") and resource ("une catégorie analytique existante"), which cleanly separates it from create_category and get_category siblings by name. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the category must already exist, permission needs), and no mention of alternatives like create_category. The partial-update note is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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