update_application_category

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses mutation (update) and partial update semantics. However, it does not mention idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., category existence), error conditions, or the output schema. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is clear, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Update an existing application category.' vs 'Updates specific fields...'). Still efficient overall.

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 6 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but misses return value details (output schema exists but unmentioned) and prerequisites. Decent but could be more complete for a 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'New space-separated glob patterns (optional)'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but could be more precise about constraints or types.

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 'Update an existing application category' and 'Updates specific fields... Only provided fields are updated.' This specifies the action (update), resource (application category), and partial update behavior, distinguishing it from create and delete siblings.

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 versus alternatives like create_application_category or delete_application_category. The description only implies usage via the action, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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