Apply category changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the two-phase dry-run workflow, the default preview mode, the need for explicit confirmation, and that tagId null clears the category. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, but the critical mutation safety behavior is clear.

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 three short sentences and front-loads the core write behavior and safety protocol. Every sentence adds actionable information with no waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough behavioral context to call it safely: dry-run first, show preview, confirm, then write. It could be more complete about response format or failure modes, but the essential safety contract is present.

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 50%, with dryRun already documented in the schema. The description adds useful meaning for dryRun's workflow role and for tagId null clearing the category, but it does not explain the changes array structure or transactionId semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: writing category changes back to ZenMoney. It is clearly a mutation tool and distinct from likely read-oriented siblings such as zen_review_expenses and zen_find_transactions, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: always call with dryRun:true first, present the preview, and only call with dryRun:false after explicit user confirmation. It does not contrast with sibling tools, but the procedural guidance is clear and strong.

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