update_category

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

Annotations provide rich information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds valuable context by specifying 'budgeted amount' and 'current month' scope. It doesn't contradict annotations and supplements them with operational details, though it could mention the 'dry_run' parameter's effect.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations and usage guidelines, leaving the agent to rely heavily on structured fields for full understanding.

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 must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions 'budgeted amount' (mapping to 'budgeted' parameter) and implies 'category' and 'current month' (related to 'category_id' and possibly 'budget_id'), but doesn't explain 'budget_id', 'dry_run', or parameter relationships. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('budgeted amount for a category in the current month'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_transaction' or 'update_transactions', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_transaction' or 'list_categories'. It mentions 'current month' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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