Update Catalog

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description needed to add context such as whether this is a full replacement or a partial merge of attributes, and what happens to attributes omitted from `data`. It supplies none of that and merely restates the name. The valuable warnings (slug deprecated, id-in-body ignored) live in the schema, not here.

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 waste-free sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. It is efficient but that efficiency comes from omitting information rather than from tight editing.

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 mutation on a nested JSON:API-style payload with a deprecated field and unique-constrained external_id, and the description covers none of it. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but update semantics (merge vs replace, ignored fields) are essential and missing.

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 50%, so the description should compensate, but it adds nothing about the two top-level parameters or the updatable attribute set (icon, name, position, description, external_id). The caller must read the nested schema to learn which fields are accepted and that `slug` is deprecated.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a specific catalog) plus the identifying key (by id), which distinguishes it from the many update_* siblings by resource name. It does not, however, say anything about what aspects of the catalog are updatable or how it relates to update_catalog_entity / update_catalog_property.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the create/list siblings that would be alternatives. The only implied instruction is that the caller must already know the catalog id.

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