remove_budget

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

The description adds the key behavioral detail that the request is idempotent, which goes beyond the annotations' 'destructiveHint: true'. This informs the agent that calling it when no budget exists is harmless.

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 short, with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides an important behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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 simple destructive tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose and idempotency. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but given no output schema, this is sufficient context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states the action ('remove'), the resource ('budget'), and the scope ('for a specific category and period'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'upsert_budget' or 'get_budget_summary'.

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 mentions idempotency but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'upsert_budget'), nor does it specify prerequisites or scenarios where removal is inappropriate.

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