UpdateCategoryGroup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. 'Rename' adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: this mutation only changes the name field rather than arbitrary category-group properties. It still omits permissions, side effects, and error behavior, so it remains thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. It is arguably too terse for a mutation with three parameters, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety/idempotency, and 100% schema description coverage, the core facts an agent needs are available. The description itself contributes almost nothing beyond the verb, which is minimally adequate for a low-complexity rename operation.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including plan_id defaults and the 50-character name limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('category group'), clearly separating it from siblings like Ynab_UpdateCategory and Ynab_CreateCategoryGroup. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as Ynab_UpdateCategory. The agent gets no help distinguishing this from other update tools.

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