Update category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the merge-patch semantics, details null handling for parent_id and file_id, and warns that null on other fields is rejected. This goes well beyond typical descriptions and prevents misuse.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives necessary constraints, and ends with a useful pointer to formal schema. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (JSON Merge Patch, specific null constraints), the description covers the key behavioral aspects and provides a clear reference for exact shape. It doesn't mention return values or side effects, but for an update operation this is a minor gap, and the lack of an output schema makes the omission less critical.

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 schema already documents both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the nested 'category' object's acceptable null behavior and pointing to get_operation_schema for the exact request shape, which compensates for the schema's abstract mention of UpdateCategoryRequest.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Update an existing category via JSON Merge Patch'. The verb 'Update' and resource 'category' are explicit, and the merge-patch detail distinguishes it from create or get operations, making the purpose 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 clearly implies when to use this tool (updating an existing category, partial updates via merge patch) and provides concrete operational guidance such as which fields accept null. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'create_category' for new categories, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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