Hold funds for next month

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint: true, but the description explicitly states the opposite: 'calling twice with 1000 leaves 2000 held.' That is a direct contradiction of the idempotency annotation, which would mislead an agent deciding whether a retry is safe. The rich detail about clamping and the returned fields is genuinely useful, but the conflict with structured metadata forces the lowest score.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and unit, then layered with the additive rule, the correction path, and the clamping caveat. It is a bit dense at four sentences, but every sentence carries operational information an agent needs before calling.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the response fields (`heldAmount`, `forNextMonth`, `held: false`) and explaining how to interpret a partial or empty hold. Combined with the additive semantics and correction procedure, an agent has everything needed to call and read this tool correctly.

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 both `month` (YYYY-MM) and `amount` (cents) are already fully documented; the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics beyond the schema by explaining clamping to available surplus and that the resulting hold can be smaller than requested, but it does not extend the parameter definitions themselves.

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 and resource ('Hold ... leftover "to budget" money back for next month') with the unit of measure (integer cents) and the scope (this month's surplus). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_budget_amount, set_budget_carryover, and reset_budget_hold.

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?

Explicitly gives the correction path ('To correct a hold, call reset_budget_hold first') and clarifies that the call is additive rather than replacing, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of a full when/when-not comparison against set_budget_carryover or set_budget_amount, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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