Docflow Update Category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only repeats the update intent and endpoint, without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or consequences of changing settings. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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. The endpoint inclusion is useful, but the phrase 'settings' is somewhat generic and could have been used more specifically.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, six parameters, and competing sibling tools, this description is too sparse. It omits usage context, behavioral details, and sufficient parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema helps but does not make up for the missing operational guidance.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify that workspace_id and category_id identify the target, nor does it explain the meaning of name or the interaction between enabled, extract_model, and category_prompt. The schema itself provides descriptions for some fields, but the description fails to compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'update an existing file category's settings.' Including the endpoint ('POST /category/update') further clarifies the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling docflow_amend_category, so it stops short of 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 such as docflow_create_category, docflow_amend_category, or docflow_delete_category. The word 'existing' implies it is not for creation, but there are no explicit context cues or exclusions.

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