update-tracking-category

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. While 'Updates' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what tracking categories are, what fields can be updated, what the 'status' enum means in practice, or what happens after the update. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'trackingCategoryId', 'name', or 'status' represent or how they should be used. The description doesn't compensate for this gap by explaining parameter purposes, formats, or constraints beyond what's visible in the enum for 'status'.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('an existing tracking category in Xero'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update-tracking-options', which could cause confusion about which tool to use for different tracking-related updates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tracking category ID), compare it to 'create-tracking-category' or 'update-tracking-options', or specify appropriate contexts for updating tracking categories versus other entities.

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