budget_configure

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the authorization scope (manage), the required user-confirmation gate, the optimistic-concurrency pattern (revision from budget_status), and a validation rule ('effective date cannot be in the past'). Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so this extra context is a genuine contribution rather than repetition.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct actionable information. Minor flaw: it leads with permission requirements before stating what the tool actually does, so the purpose is buried behind prerequisites.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the dangerous parts (auth, concurrency, date validation) but leaves half the parameters and the result behavior unaddressed. Adequate to call safely, not complete enough to call confidently without opening the schema.

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?

With only 11% schema coverage across 9 params, the description must compensate: it explains revision's source, the effective-date constraint, and maps daily_limit/review_time/settle_time to concrete concepts. But name, carry_over, and especially request_id (the idempotency key) are never explained, leaving key inputs ambiguous.

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 concrete verb and two specific resource facets ('Change daily allowance or settlement/review times'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like budget_status. However it omits other mutable fields (name, carry_over) and never explicitly names an alternative tool it must not be confused with.

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 real preconditions: 'Requires manage scope and explicit user request' and 'Fetch budget_status first for settings.revision'. That tells the agent both the auth bar and the required call ordering. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus budget_schedule or budget_adjust_pool).

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