Goals Set Goal Budget Amount

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation with readOnlyHint=false. The phrase 'may create or update Monarch data' adds a small useful upsert nuance beyond the annotations. However, it omits side effects, idempotency behavior, and details about what data is created or updated.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence is slightly generic but not wasteful, so it earns a solid score for structure.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, low schema coverage, and no idempotency guarantee, two sentences are far too little. It lacks parameter semantics, return shape, and usage context, making the definition inadequate for reliable tool 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 only 29%, with only fields and output_mode documented. The description does not explain apply_to_future, account_id, month, or the relationship between goal_id and amount, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 names a specific action ('Set') and resource ('goal budget amount'), and the second sentence clarifies this may be an upsert operation. It is clear enough to understand the basic intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like budget_set_budget_amount or goals_get_goal_budget_amounts.

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 on when to use this tool versus related goal or budget tools. It does not name alternatives, conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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