reset_budget_holdRelease a month's held funds back into that month's to budget; safe when nothing is held, returning forNextMonth to 0.
Release everything held back for next month, returning it to this month’s "to budget". Safe to call when nothing is held. Returns the resulting forNextMonth, which should be 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | Yes | Month whose hold to release, as YYYY-MM. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still adds value by spelling out the mutation effect (hold is moved back to this month's 'to budget') and the no-op-when-empty behavior. It stops short of noting irreversibility or permission needs.
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?
Three short sentences, effect stated first, safety condition second, return value last. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.
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 only one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description fills the remaining gap by naming the returned `forNextMonth` value and its expected 0 result. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single `month` parameter is fully documented in the schema (format YYYY-MM). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Release') and resource ('everything held back for next month'), plus the effect (returns it to this month's 'to budget'). The inverse relationship to hold_for_next_month is clear from semantics, though the sibling is never named, which keeps it just 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?
'Safe to call when nothing is held' gives one call condition (no-op safety), which is genuine guidance. It never states when to prefer this over hold_for_next_month or other budget tools, so usage is only implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.