Update Category Group

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying a mutation), which aligns with 'Update'. The description adds that this is '[1 API call]', hinting at a single operation, but doesn't disclose other traits like permissions needed, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, this earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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—just two short phrases with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Update a category group's name') and includes a useful efficiency note ('[1 API call]'). Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), annotations cover the mutation aspect, and schema coverage is complete. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain return values or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps in understanding outcomes, making it adequate but not fully 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (budget_id, category_group_id, name). The description mentions 'name' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain naming constraints or relationships between parameters). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a category group's name'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'update_category' or 'update_month_category', which would require mentioning what makes a category group different from those other entities.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid category_group_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling update tools like 'update_category'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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