update_category

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a mandatory user approval step, which is operational context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and offers a useful safety guideline.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a critical operational instruction, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, parameter interactions, validation rules, and the consequences of configuration changes. The approval note is helpful but does not compensate for the missing guidance.

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 0%, and the description only says 'rename or configure' without explaining the seven parameters. The agent must rely on parameter names (e.g., new_title, kind, clear_parent) to infer meaning, which is insufficient for a parameter-heavy mutation tool.

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 that the tool renames or configures an existing ZenMoney category, which distinguishes it from create_category, delete_category, and merge_categories. The verb 'rename or configure' plus 'existing' makes the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 an existing category but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_category or delete_category. The approval requirement is a usage note but not about when to choose this tool over others.

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