Update an existing Redmine issue category by ID with new category data, using a PUT request to the issue categories endpoint.
Update issue category (PUT /issue_categories/:id.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| issue_category | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates a category via PUT, implying a write operation, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens on invalid IDs. The minimal disclosure leaves the agent guessing about operational behavior.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is not verbose, but its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. The structure is clean but under-specified for the complexity of the tool.
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?
The tool has an open object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not cover the expected request body, possible response, or any operational context. An agent would struggle to construct a correct request without additional documentation. This is severely incomplete for an update operation.
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 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. While 'id' is self-explanatory, the 'issue_category' object is an open schema (additionalProperties: true) and the description gives no hint about required fields or structure. An agent cannot know what to put inside the object without external knowledge.
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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'issue category', and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which distinguishes it from create/get/delete siblings. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or provide any additional context beyond the basic action.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_issue_category_create or redmine_issue_category_delete. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing category ID, or when not to use it. The context is purely implied by the verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.