Set a pool's actual budget balance with an audit reason, creating an adjustment entry rather than a bank transfer.
Requires manage scope and explicit user request. Set a pool's actual budget balance with an audit reason; this creates an adjustment entry, not a bank transfer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| balance | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine context by stating the authorization scope, the requirement of an explicit user request, and that the effect is an audit adjustment entry rather than an actual transfer of funds. It does not mention what happens to prior balance history or whether the set is absolute, but the core behavior is disclosed.
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 compact sentences with the permission prerequisite front-loaded and the key semantic distinction (adjustment vs. transfer) immediately after. No filler, though the second clause is dense and slightly overloaded.
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 mutating tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety/authorization picture and the nature of the resulting entry. It falls short on parameter-level essentials — balance format and the purpose of request_id — which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.
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 all four parameters are required, so the description must compensate. It only glosses 'pool' and 'reason' indirectly ('with an audit reason'); 'balance' format (string currency?), and especially 'request_id' (presumably an idempotency key, consistent with idempotentHint) are unexplained.
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 and resource: setting a pool's actual budget balance, plus a clarifying negation that it creates an adjustment entry rather than a bank transfer. This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like budget_record and budget_settle, though it never names them directly.
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?
Gives clear preconditions ('Requires manage scope and explicit user request') and an implicit exclusion ('not a bank transfer'), which points the agent toward the transfer/record tool for movement of funds. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.