Edit category

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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'parent null = top level' convention, but omits that updates are partial (unspecified fields are left unchanged) and does not clarify what makes the operation destructive (e.g., archiving).

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the operations and inlines the null-parent convention. Every clause maps to a real parameter, with only mild readability cost from the parenthetical nesting.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers which fields can change but not the return behavior, partial-update semantics, or the practical effect of archiving. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want closed.

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?

With schema coverage at 43%, the description compensates by mapping friendly names to ambiguous fields: 'rename' → title, 'mandatory flag' → required, 'budget inclusion' → include_in_budget, 'archive' → archived. This resolves the two undocumented-looking flags, though it adds nothing beyond the schema for kind's enum values.

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 verb 'edit/rename/move/change/archive' is paired with the resource 'category', and the description enumerates every mutable aspect (title, parent, kind, budget inclusion, required flag, archived). An agent can tell it apart from create_category and delete_category without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say to prefer this over delete_category for removals, nor that it only updates the fields supplied. Usage is left entirely to inference from the enumerated operations.

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