updateIssueCategory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update issue category,' with no mention of side effects, permissions, partial vs. full update, reversibility, or what happens to existing fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently compact. It omits essential information that should be present, making it closer to a title than a description.

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?

Given a nested schema with two required top-level parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what the parameters are for, or any behavioral context. This is well below the minimum viable description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not: it fails to mention pathParams.issueCategoryId, format, or bodyParams.issue_category fields (name, assigned_to_id). The schema shows structure but no semantics, and the description adds zero value.

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 'Update issue category' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (issue category), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createIssueCategory, getIssueCategory, and deleteIssueCategory. However, it is almost identical to the tool name and provides no additional scope or detail, so it doesn't fully capitalize on the opportunity to add clarity.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'update'—use this when you need to modify an existing issue category—but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., createIssueCategory) to prefer in other scenarios. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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