Update a budget item's actual cost or note using its UUID to keep wedding budget records accurate and current.
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 already declare openWorld, idempotent, and destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it does not explain the destructive semantics, permission requirements, or whether unspecified fields are preserved.
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 wastes no words and states the operation and its scope immediately. It is efficient but very terse, leaving room for minimal added guidance.
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 annotations carrying the safety profile and a 100%-covered schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits when-to-use guidance and any behavioral context, but no output schema means return values need not be explained.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description names 'actual cost' and 'note' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb (update), resource (budget item's actual cost and/or note), and targeting key (by UUID). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema, though it does not name a sibling (e.g., get_budget) for contrast.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only hint about sourcing the required UUID lives in the schema param description ('Budget item UUID from get_budget'), not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.