Update or move a category

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real extra weight by disclosing the cascade effect ('moves everything beneath it too') and the cycle guard ('cannot be moved inside one of its own subcategories'). It does not say what happens to unspecified fields or whether the operation is atomic, but the disclosed traits are genuinely useful and non-obvious.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the most consequential information (what it does, then the cascade caveat). Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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?

There is no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, so the description should do more. It covers the rename/move semantics and the key constraint, but is silent on slug/description updates and on outcomes such as what is returned or what happens on a failed move.

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 50%: id, parentId, and projectId have descriptions, while name, slug, and description do not. The description maps loosely onto name (rename) and parentId (move), but it never mentions updating slug or description, so an agent could easily overlook two of the tool's mutable fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Renames a category, or moves it under a different parent'), clearly separating it from siblings like create_category, delete_category, and list_categories. However, it frames the tool only as rename/move, while the schema shows slug and description are also updatable, so the stated purpose is narrower than the tool's actual scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb phrase (rename or reparent an existing category), and the sibling set makes the create/delete/list boundary fairly inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative for the adjacent operations.

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