Update Category Name

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

Discloses response behavior (returns all Categories and the updated category name), error payload format with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provides rich context about what happens on success and failure.

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 well-organized with purpose, response, defaults, prerequisite, error handling, and endpoint reference. However, it repeats information: 'Applies the change and returns the updated category name' is largely redundant with the first sentence and the earlier response mention, and listing required parameters duplicates the schema.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (updated name and all Categories), error semantics with status codes, parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, and the API endpoint. This is complete for a simple update tool, enabling confident use without external lookups.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that company_id and project_id can be omitted and default to procore_set_config values, and that category_id must refer to an existing parent record resolved via a list tool.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Category’s name within a Project.' The description also distinguishes this from the sibling 'update_subcategory_name' by requiring a 'parent record,' and notes the response returns all Categories.

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?

Provides valuable guidance: category_id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved with a list tool first. It also explains that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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