snipeit_gen_categoriesidUpdates an existing Snipe-IT category by ID, letting you change its name, category type, check-in email, default EULA, and acceptance settings.
PUT /categories/{id}: Update a Category. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categoriesid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category ID | |
| body | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not explain what gets overwritten by an update, whether omitted fields are cleared, or that a confirmation string may be required.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categoriesid") is boilerplate that consumes half the description without informing the agent.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with a nested body object, a conditional confirm parameter, and no output schema. The description covers none of that, leaving the agent dependent on raw schema inspection for a write 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 67%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It never mentions the required body fields (name, category_type), the category_type enum values, or the conditional confirm parameter, which are the details an agent most needs.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update a Category"), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from the numerous sibling category tools (snipeit_gen_categories_1, snipeit_gen_categoriesid_1/_2/_3), so an agent cannot tell which category operation this is without opening the schema.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the confirm parameter requirement. The only implied guidance is the word "Update".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.