Update a budget item's actual cost or note by UUID to keep wedding budget records accurate.
Update a budget item's actual cost and/or note by UUID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Note for the budget item | |
| uuid | Yes | Budget item UUID from get_budget | |
| actual_cost_cents | No | Actual cost in cents |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by indicating that either actual cost, note, or both can be updated ('and/or'), implying partial update semantics. It does not disclose side effects, whether omitted fields are left unchanged, or any authorization needs, but the simple scope and read-safe annotation keep this at a reasonable level.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the action, target, fields, and identifier with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 partial-update tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a non-destructive annotation, the description covers the core invocation need. It could mention that UUIDs come from get_budget or how the update affects the budget summary, but these are minor for correct invocation.
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 all three parameters: uuid, actual_cost_cents, and note. The description reinforces the semantics but does not add meaning beyond the schema; it earns the baseline score.
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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('budget item'), and the exact fields involved ('actual cost and/or note'), plus the key identifier ('by UUID'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and it is distinguishable from sibling update tools like update_travel_item and update_vendor.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites must be met. The only implicit signal is that the budget item must already exist and be identified by UUID; the description does not point to get_budget or mention that add_budget_item is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.