timeiq_expense_category_update

Does 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 mentions 'partial changeset' implying PATCH semantics, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., does it modify other fields?), error handling (e.g., if slug does not exist), or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema) and no annotations, the description should explain return value, error behavior, and effect on other fields. It lacks these details, leaving the agent with significant unknowns for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'slug' and 'partial changeset' but does not detail what fields the changeset can contain (e.g., name, color) or what 'dry_run' does. The description adds minimal meaning beyond stating the presence of these parameters.

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', the resource 'expense category', the identifier 'by its slug', and the method 'with a partial changeset', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like timeiq_expense_category_create or timeiq_expense_category_activate.

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 for updating an existing expense category, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timeiq_expense_category_create for new categories or timeiq_expense_category_archive for deactivation. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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