update_category_permission

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

The description implies mutation ('update'), which aligns with the annotation 'destructiveHint: true'. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of side effects, partial update behavior, or required authorization. The annotation already covers the destructive nature, so the description adds minimal value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite clear parameter schemas, the description lacks contextual completeness for a mutation tool with 9 parameters. It does not explain partial update semantics, required fields (only two are required), or what happens if no permission fields are specified. The absence of an output schema makes the lack of return value description more notable.

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 100% description coverage, so each parameter already has clear meaning. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Update a user group's permissions for a category' clearly states the verb (update), resource (user group permissions), and scope (for a category). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_category_permissions, making the purpose immediately apparent.

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 such as list_category_permissions, or when to avoid it. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or consequences of misuse.

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