update_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Update'), describes what properties can be modified, and includes an important constraint about goal_target requiring pre-existing goal configuration. However, it lacks information about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative given the output schema exists. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, detailed parameter explanations, and return format indication. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects given it's a write operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. It explains each parameter's purpose, clarifies that budget_id accepts 'last-used' as a special value, notes which parameters are optional, and provides crucial context about goal_target requiring pre-existing goal configuration. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 updates a category's properties with specific examples (rename, change note, move to different group, update goal target), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_category_budget' or 'move_category_funds', which appear related to category operations.

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 implies usage when modifying category properties, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_category_budget' or 'move_category_funds'. The goal_target parameter note ('only works if category already has a goal configured') offers some contextual constraint, but overall guidance is limited to implied context rather than explicit alternatives.

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