Update category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating partial update semantics ('Only provided fields change') and specifying the two primary operations. However, it does not disclose side effects of moving a category (e.g., impact on child categories), permissions, or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary actions. 'Only provided fields change' adds critical behavioral info without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and update semantics. It lacks explicit details about extra_fields and return values, but given the schema provides some parameter descriptions, it is sufficient for most use cases. The absence of annotations is offset by the clarity of the described behavior.

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?

The description maps 'rename' to the title parameter and 'move' to the parent_id parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. It also clarifies partial update behavior. However, it does not mention extra_fields, and schema coverage is only 50%, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter explanations.

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 clearly states the tool's function with specific actions ('Rename a category or move it under a different parent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_category and delete_category. The resource (category) and scope are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when renaming or moving a category) and implies partial update behavior ('Only provided fields change'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use cases are specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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