ynab_update_category

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds detail: it modifies the budgeted amount for the current month, supports a dry-run preview, and returns updated category fields. No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint=true is consistent with setting a budget amount.

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 structured with clear sections: main sentence, Args, Returns, Examples, Errors. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses minimal, focused sentences. Every detail serves a purpose without 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?

Given four parameters, two required, and the presence of an output schema (which documents return values), the description is complete. It covers parameter semantics, usage scenarios (dry_run, default budget), examples, and error cases. The Returns line summarizes output fields, and common errors are addressed.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all four parameters: budget_id (optional UUID), category_id (required UUID), budgeted (required integer in milliunits), and dry_run (optional boolean). It provides milliunits conversion (e.g., budgeted=100000 for $100) and clarifies the default budget omission behavior.

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 the budgeted amount for a category in the current month. It specifies the verb (update), resource (category budget), and scope (current month), distinguishing it from sibling tools that update transactions or retrieve data.

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 usage context: optional budget_id for default budget, dry_run for preview, and error handling guidance ('No default budget set' suggests running ynab_set_default_budget). It lacks explicit comparison to alternatives but effectively communicates when to use this tool.

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