Rename a budget category or change its visibility by hiding or unhiding it, using the category name or ID.
Rename or hide/unhide a budget category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the category | |
| hidden | No | Set to true to hide, false to unhide | |
| category | Yes | Category name or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description only restates the tool's purpose and does not add behavioral context such as side effects, required permissions, or consequences of hiding a category beyond what annotations and the title already convey.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple tool with three fully documented parameters and meaningful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only a small explicit note about combining rename and hide operations or clarifying that name and hidden are optional independent actions, though the schema already conveys this.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for category, name, and hidden. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.
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-resource pair: 'Rename or hide/unhide a budget category.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_category, delete_category, and update_category_group by naming the exact operations it supports.
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 when to use the tool based on the desired action (rename, hide, or unhide), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as create_category or delete_category, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.