update_custom_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. '更新' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether the operation is partial (merging provided fields) or full replacement, whether the id must reference an existing category, how errors are surfaced, or what happens to fields not included in the update. For an update tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is warranted.

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 concise sentence with zero waste. However, the brevity borders on under-specification since it adds no behavioral or usage context — it's efficient but not informative enough.

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 tool has 2 params (one nested object with 3 subfields), no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description doesn't address update semantics (merge vs replace), the meaning of schema_hint, required validation, or what the return value looks like. Given the nested object complexity and zero annotation coverage, this is insufficiently complete.

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%. The description lists no parameter information, but the schema documents id (エントリID) and data fields (name, description, schema_hint). Notably, schema_hint has only a vague schema description ('期待フィールドのヒント') and the description adds no clarification about this nested object's meaning or required structure. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'カスタムカテゴリを更新' (Update custom category) provides a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes the purpose from siblings like create_custom_category and delete_custom_category by the update verb, though it lacks specification of what fields or scope are updated. It's minimally adequate but doesn't add detail beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling set includes create_custom_category, get_custom_category, delete_custom_category, update_custom_entry, and list_custom_categories, but the description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (such as needing an existing category), or distinctions among these related tools.

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