set_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the upsert-like behavior by saying 'Set (or update)', which is a useful trait beyond the tool name. However, it does not mention what happens to an existing budget beyond updating it, nor auth requirements, return value, or other side effects.

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 one short sentence that states the core behavior and the key month format up front. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 is simple with two scalar parameters and no output schema, so the description is close to sufficient for basic invocation. Still, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves the exact effect on an existing budget and the response behavior unspecified, which are gaps an agent might need.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'month' is in YYYY-MM format and implies that 'amount' is the budget amount. It does not explicitly describe the amount's units or meaning beyond the word 'budget', leaving a minor semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set (or update)') and a clear resource ('the budget') tied to a month, with the month format included. This separates it from the sibling expense-management tools, which operate on expenses, categories, and summaries rather than budgets.

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?

It clearly establishes the intended context: creating or updating a monthly budget for a given YYYY-MM month. There are no hidden alternatives among the siblings, so explicit when-not guidance is not necessary; the resource 'budget' is enough to route the agent correctly.

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