Update Category

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: false' indicates this is a mutation tool, which aligns with the description's 'Update' action. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying updatable fields but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description could provide more insight beyond the annotation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and scope, and the bracketed '[1 API call]' provides useful implementation context without verbosity.

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 tool's mutation nature, lack of output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which could be important for an update operation in a budgeting context.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions 'name, note, or goal', which partially maps to parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain interactions between parameters or optionality, relying on the schema for details.

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 resource ('an existing category'), specifying the editable fields (name, note, or goal). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_category' and 'merge_category' by focusing on modification rather than creation or merging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_category_group' or 'update_month_category' in terms of scope.

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 like 'merge_category' or 'update_category_group', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing category ID. It lacks context about when this tool is appropriate compared to other update operations in the sibling list.

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