update_category

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. 'Update' implies mutation but the description doesn't state whether fields not passed are preserved unchanged (partial vs full update semantics), whether updating type could affect existing transactions, or what happens if the category_id_or_name doesn't match. It doesn't describe return values, though an output schema exists.

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?

Compact bulleted parameter list is front-loaded and readable. Every line earns its place. Could be slightly more concise but the structure is clear and 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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should clarify update semantics (partial vs full replacement, whether null means 'no change'), effects on linked transactions, and what empty optional fields imply. These gaps matter for a category-update operation with 4 parameters.

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%, but the description fully documents all four parameters with clear semantics ('Optional new name', 'ID or current name of the category to update', etc.). This compensates well for the complete lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't add format details or constraints beyond names.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Update an existing category's name, type, or description.' Distinguishes from siblings since delete_category, add_category, and list_categories exist, and this clearly targets modifying an existing category while specifying the mutable fields.

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 context (updating existing categories) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or exclusions. It doesn't distinguish from update_transaction pitfalls or explain when to prefer this over add/delete category operations, though siblings make the purpose fairly obvious.

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