update_category

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by surfacing the destructive replacement semantics for category-group children and the conversion restriction. It does not mention response shape, permissions, or partial-update behavior, but those are less central given the annotation and existing schema.

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?

Three sentences, no filler; the primary purpose comes first and the critical guardrail is last. Every sentence carries meaningful selection or behavioral 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?

The description covers the most important domain semantics (update scope, child replacement, no conversion), but with no output schema and multiple undocumented boolean parameters, an agent still has to infer response and partial-update behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for a 9-parameter mutation 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?

The description reinforces the children parameter's group-only behavior and the category/group distinction, but it mostly restates what the children schema already documents. With 56% schema coverage the description should compensate for the undocumented booleans (archived, is_income, exclude_from_budget, exclude_from_totals), but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update properties for an existing category or category group') and immediately distinguishes the tool from create/delete siblings by explicitly prohibiting conversion between the two forms. It also names the special category-group child replacement behavior, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context that this is for updating existing categories or groups and an explicit when-not ('Cannot be used to convert between category and category group'). It stops short of naming sibling tools such as create_category or delete_category as alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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