update_solution_categoryModify a Freshservice knowledge-base category by ID, changing its name or description or setting it as the default category.
Update a knowledge-base category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| category_id | Yes | Solution category ID | |
| description | No | ||
| default_category | No | Make this the default category |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether omitted fields remain unchanged, whether null values clear fields, or what permissions are needed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the other dimensions under-specified rather than verbose.
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?
Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, this is a mutation tool with four parameters and only one required key. The description does not explain update behavior, which fields can be changed, or consequences of omitted/null values, making it incomplete for correct invocation.
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 only 50% (category_id and default_category have descriptions; name and description do not). The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, leaving gaps for the undocumented fields and no explanation of update semantics like partial vs full replacement.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('knowledge-base category'), so an agent can understand the intended action. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like update_solution_folder or update_solution_article, and 'knowledge-base category' is slightly less precise than the tool name's 'solution category'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of create_solution_category, delete_solution_category, get_solution_category, or the folder/article updaters. No prerequisites, no mention of required fields or partial-update semantics are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.