Update category

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses real behavior: partial-update semantics, that existing posts are unaffected, that no one is notified, and that the change is reversible in one call — which is consistent with destructiveHint=false and explains why the agent can act without confirmation. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 action and constraining scope are front-loaded, but 'Admins only' appears twice and the 'as Settings, Categories, Edit does' clause largely restates the first sentence. Two sentences of the four are doing little work.

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 5-parameter, 2-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, permission gating, side effects on existing posts, notifications, and reversibility — everything an agent needs to decide and act. Only failure modes (e.g. invalid category_id, insufficient role response) are 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the 'fields you leave out stay' partial-update contract tells the agent it need only send what changes, and the enumeration of rename / who_can_post / sorting maps to three of the five parameters.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource (rename / change who can post / change sorting on a category) and grounds it in a familiar UI path ('Settings, Categories, Edit'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_category, delete_category, or list_categories by name, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Admins only' is stated twice, making the permission precondition unmissable, and 'fields you leave out stay' clarifies this is for editing an existing category rather than creating one. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. create_category for new categories, list_categories to find category_id).

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