update_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a dry_run parameter for previewing changes, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens when the category_id is invalid. The description's behavioral detail is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with a single sentence for purpose, a usage guideline, and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on inputs. It covers the key aspects of the operation (partial updates, dry run, default budget). It lacks information about error handling or edge cases, but overall it is sufficient for a simple update tool.

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 description coverage, the description provides brief yet meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'hidden: Whether to hide the category'). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some parameters could benefit from more detail (e.g., expected format for note).

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 the resource ('category metadata in YNAB'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_category_budget by focusing on metadata fields (name, note, hidden) rather than budget allocations.

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 explicitly advises to only provide fields to change, which guides partial updates. It also notes the default for budget_id. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

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