Update a category

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description complements these by clarifying partial-update behavior and positioning hiding as the non-destructive path that preserves history, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the destructive hint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operations, followed by the update semantics and the safety rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, partial-update behavior, and the hide-vs-delete tradeoff. It is nearly complete; only error/permission behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema: partial updates via 'only the fields you pass are changed' and the historical-preservation consequence of setting hidden. That clarifies the patch-style contract the schema alone does not state.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Rename', 'move', 'hide/unhide') and resource ('a category'), enumerating the three supported mutations. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_category, update_category_group, and list_categories.

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?

'Only the fields you pass are changed' establishes patch semantics, and 'Hiding... is the safe alternative to deleting a category you no longer use' gives an explicit when-to-use recommendation. It lacks a named alternative tool for the delete case, but the guidance is concrete.

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