skylight_update_category

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the special conversion behavior (linked_to_profile) that changes a basic label into a full family-member profile, which is not in the annotations. It does not elaborate on side effects or reversibility, but with annotation coverage present, this is acceptable.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses an em-dash to efficiently list supported operations. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 7-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description omits the purpose of three parameters (frameId, avatar_id, selected_for_chore_chart) that also lack schema descriptions. While the main use cases are covered, an agent seeking to set those fields would not know what they affect, so the definition is incomplete.

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 57%, which is above the low threshold. The description maps 'rename/recolor' to label and color, and 'convert...linked_to_profile' to the linked_to_profile parameter, adding a bit of operational meaning not directly in the schema. However, it does not explain frameId, avatar_id, or selected_for_chore_chart, which are undocumented in the schema, leaving gaps that the description could have compensated for.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a category'), and enumerates the concrete actions: rename/recolor and converting a label into a family-member profile. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_category, delete_category, and update_family_member.

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 when to use the tool: whenever an existing category needs its label, color, or profile-linking changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no misleading guidance is present. A slightly stronger statement about when not to use it (e.g., for creating new categories) would earn a 5.

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