update_category

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. However, the description does not disclose whether the update is partial or full (e.g., whether omitted optional fields are reset to defaults), nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-like list of parameter clarifications. It is front-loaded with the main intent and does not contain redundant information.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description does not explain the return value or any update semantics (partial vs. full replacement). While the required IDs are discernible from the parameter list, the description lacks context about how this update interacts with other category operations or what happens to omitted fields. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 has no per-property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining five of the ten parameters (workspace_id, view_type, progression_enabled, cover_show, expandable) with meaningful details and an example for view_type. The remaining parameters have self-explanatory titles (e.g., name, channel_id, category_id), so the overall parameter understanding is adequate.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a category'), listing the specific attributes (name, pin status, notification settings, display options) that can be modified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_category or delete_category.

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 implies usage for modifying existing category attributes but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_category or archive_category, nor does it mention any exclusions. It does provide a helpful hint for obtaining workspace_id from list_workspaces(), but not for tool selection.

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