update_catalog_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Update' implies mutation, but nothing is mentioned about partial update semantics, required fields alongside category_id, permissions needed, side effects on related items, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 short sentence, which is concise in form but fails to convey substantive information. It does not earn its place because it only restates the tool name's meaning without adding guidance or context.

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 an update tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the combination of a vague description and sparse schema makes it impossible for an agent to understand field semantics, required versus optional updates, or the impact of the operation. Contextual completeness is severely lacking.

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 only 29% (only category_id and parent have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond their names, leaving 5 parameters (icon, order, title, active, description) completely unexplained. The low coverage requires the description to compensate, but it does not.

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 action (update) and the target (existing service catalog category), which distinguishes it from create_catalog_category and list_catalog_categories. It is specific enough to identify the tool's core purpose, though it does not enumerate what fields can be updated.

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, such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing category), or when not to use it. There is no mention of scenarios where create or list would be more appropriate.

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