update_project_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 'leave alone' semantics for name and assigned_to_id, which is valuable. However, it does not mention return values, error behavior, required permissions, or side effects beyond the mutation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. The Args section is compact and clearly structured, making it easy to scan.

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 simple 3-parameter update tool with an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and basic purpose. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., error cases, permissions), which would be expected given no annotations. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 description provides explicit meaning for all three parameters beyond the schema: category_id references list_project_categories, name uses empty string as 'leave alone', and assigned_to_id uses 0 as 'leave alone'. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates and gives the agent precise invocation instructions.

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 'Update an issue category,' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_category and delete_project_category through the verb 'update,' though it doesn't 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?

The description implies usage via the verb 'update' and provides a hint to use list_project_categories for obtaining category_id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create or delete, nor does it give exclusions or alternative tool names.

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