保存预算

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical destructive-vs-merge semantics (data replaces entirely; month+total merges). However, it omits what happens if no parameters are passed, what happens if both modes are supplied, and whether any permissions are required, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose first, then the two invocation modes. Every phrase carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description covers the main happy paths but misses important edge cases: behavior when neither mode is supplied, behavior when both are supplied, and any indication of permissions or return value.

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 coverage is 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: data is a full-document replacement, and month+total form a paired single-month merge operation. It clarifies the interactive semantics of the parameters well, though it doesn't cover edge cases like conflicting modes.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('保存预算') and immediately distinguishes its two modes: full-document replacement via data versus single-month merge via month+total. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling budget.get, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear mode-selection guidance: pass data to replace everything, or pass month + total to set one month and merge with existing data. It doesn't name alternatives or state exclusions, but the when-to-use-which-mode context is clear.

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