Edit Tracker field category

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

Annotations already declare the non-destructive, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the meaningful edit-specific behaviors that only set fields are changed and that passing version enables optimistic-lock protection against concurrent edits. It does not, however, describe what happens on a version conflict or the shape of the response.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loading the operation and then the concurrency guard, with no filler. The partial-update clause slightly duplicates the body schema's own note, keeping it just below the top band.

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 narrow partial-update mutation with full annotation coverage and a 100%-documented schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is edited, partial-update semantics, and the version guard. No output schema exists, so nothing about return values is owed; only conflict handling is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents category_id, body (name/order/description) and version in full detail. The description's remarks about body and version largely restate the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Edit a field category'), making the operation immediately identifiable against siblings such as tracker_fields_categories_create. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with any sibling (e.g. create/get), so it stops short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: editing an existing category, with the PATCH-style note that omitted fields are left alone. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus tracker_fields_categories_create or tracker_fields_get, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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