update_budgets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the AND combination of filters and the mandatory filter/value requirement. However, it does not disclose whether updates are additive or replacing, what happens when no budgets match, or any side effects, which limits transparency for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second adds the necessary constraints without redundancy.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the essential filter/update semantics but lacks details on edge cases like empty results, partial updates, or interaction between filter fields. It is adequate but leaves room for more operational guidance.

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 provides 100% descriptive coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to compensate significantly. It introduces the concepts of 'target filters' and 'specified values' but does not explicitly map which parameters belong to each group; the schema already communicates this via the 'filter_' prefix and 'New' descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Update budgets') and the mechanism ('matching the target filters with the specified values'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_budget or delete_budgets, and the phrasing 'target filters' vs 'specified values' conveys the core purpose effectively.

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 usage prerequisites ('At least one target filter and one update value must be provided') and explains how filters are combined ('All provided filters are combined using AND'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this tool over similar update operations, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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