update_category_or_project

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses a hidden pre-read API call when Projects-ONLY fields are supplied, explains that the tool refuses categories in that case, and gives a precise failure-mode distinction between transient 500s (retry) and permanent 500s (missing document). It also warns that completion via /doc/update skips app side effects. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and not contradicted by any annotation.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and sibling routing, followed by well-separated operational warnings. It is longer than average, but the tool is complex and the extra length covers genuine behavioral hazards. It loses a point for some redundancy with schema details (repeated field lists and numerous verification dates) that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 21-parameter tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious operational context: full-access-token requirement, category blocking logic, strategy-disabled behavior, completion side effects, and the 500-as-missing-ID failure mode. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool correctly and to interpret common failures.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by grouping parameters into 'Projects ONLY' vs. shared fields, clarifying that label_ids applies to both categories and projects, and noting that strategy fields work even when the strategy is disabled. It does not need to enumerate every parameter because the schema already does that thoroughly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a category or project' and lists the editable fields (labels, color, icon, note, project fields). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool: 'For tasks, use update_task.' An agent can determine what this tool does and what it does not do without reading the schema.

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 explicit routing guidance: tasks go to update_task, projects must not be completed here, and Projects-ONLY fields are blocked for categories. It also clarifies that strategy-dependent fields can be set even when the strategy is disabled, which prevents an agent from wrongly assuming a prerequisite. The 'existing CATEGORY or PROJECT' wording plus 'For tasks, use update_task' provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals.

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