remove_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool re-points transactions/rules/budgets and then hides the category rather than physically deleting it, which is critical behavioral context. It stops short of noting irreversibility or permissions, but for a mutation tool this is a clear and honest disclosure.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds necessary details about the merge behavior and side effects. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the parameters, and the behavioral consequences well. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens when category doesn't exist, or if merge target is the same), but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of complex schema, it is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema provides bare parameter names with zero descriptions, so the description compensates by clarifying that 'name' is the category to remove and 'merge_into' is the destination category. This gives operational meaning to both parameters, though it does not explicitly name the parameters or specify constraints like 'must both be existing categories.' The description adds meaningful semantics beyond schema.

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 immediately states the action ('Remove a spend category') with a specific method ('MERGING it into another'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_custom_category or set_txn_category by emphasizing the merge-and-hide behavior. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 clearly explains the intended use case: to remove a category while preserving its linked data by merging into another. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses an exclusion clause, but the context is strong enough to imply appropriate use.

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