edit_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., idempotency), error conditions (e.g., missing category), permissions required, or return behavior. A mutation tool needs significantly more transparency.

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 single sentence is highly efficient and front-loaded, stating the core purpose without wasted words. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, trading conciseness for completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required, 2 optional) and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain when to edit vs. other category operations, prerequisites like existing category, or the nature of the return value. The output schema exists but the description omits any behavioral context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates the purpose of the 'name' and 'description' parameters. No extra constraints, formats, or relationships are provided.

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 'Change a category name or authoritative description' uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a category name or authoritative description'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_category, add_categories, delete_category, and restore_category. No ambiguity exists about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_categories for creating, delete_category for removing). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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