update_blog_category

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral weight. 'fields to change' usefully implies a partial update (unspecified fields untouched), but it omits permission needs, reversibility, and what happens to fields not passed. It adds a little beyond the annotations but leaves real gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource followed by the invocation hint. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with nested SEO object, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. The schema is rich enough that return values needn't be explained, but permission and side-effect context is 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the nested SEO object. The description's field list ('name, description, image, slug, SEO') merely restates what the schema provides and adds no format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('blog/article category') and enumerates the updatable fields (name, description, image, slug, SEO). The resource naming distinguishes it from update_product_category and update_article, though it does not explicitly route among them.

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?

'Pass id + fields to change' gives the minimal invocation pattern and implies partial-update usage, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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