Update Category Name

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

The description contains contradictory statements: it says 'Update a Category’s name' but later claims 'Creates a new Resource Planning records and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201).' This contradicts the update semantics and does not align with the tool name nor the annotations (which indicate a write operation but not creation). The inconsistency harms clarity.

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 relatively concise at five sentences, but it includes unnecessary and confusing details (e.g., the creation statement and HTTP status). The structure could be improved by focusing on the update action and returning all categories.

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 description inconsistently describes the return value: 'returns all Categories for the Project' vs 'returns the created object.' Since there is no output schema, the description should clearly state the response structure. It also lacks information about authentication or error handling.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description merely lists the required parameters without adding new information, so it does not improve understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool updates a category's name within a project, specifying the resource type (Category) and scope (within a Project). It also mentions 'Resource Planning records' to differentiate from general category operations, though this could be clearer.

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 provides some context by stating 'Use this to perform the update category action on Resource Planning records,' but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools (e.g., for updating other category fields or subcategories).

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