Update a YNAB category

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint false), is idempotent (idempotentHint true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds the key behavioral detail that 'Only the fields provided are changed,' which clarifies partial update behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies behavioral semantics and directs to an alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the medium complexity (5 parameters with full schema descriptions, annotations present, and no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and scope. It could briefly mention that budget_id and category_id must refer to existing resources, but the schema's required fields and descriptions handle that reasonably.

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 100% with all parameters described, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the action (update) and the resource (YNAB category), listing specific fields (name, note, category group) that can be changed. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ynab_assign_budgeted_amount by explicitly stating what it does not do.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool (to update category name, note, or group) and when not to (to change budgeted amount, use the named sibling). It implies that only provided fields are updated, but does not explicitly exclude other potential confusions like creating a category.

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