set_default_budget

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that this sets the default 'for subsequent operations', hinting at persistent state change, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It states the action and purpose clearly, though it could benefit from more usage guidance or parameter details. The annotations and output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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 0%, with one parameter 'budget_id' documented only as a required string. The description doesn't add any parameter details (e.g., format, source, or constraints), so it doesn't compensate for the low coverage. With 0 parameters explained in the description, baseline is 4, but since schema coverage is low and description adds no value, a 3 reflects minimal adequacy.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('default budget'), specifying it's for 'subsequent operations'. This distinguishes it from tools like 'get_default_budget' or 'list_budgets', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'clear_cache' or 'update_category'. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid budget_id), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'get_default_budget' or 'list_budgets'. Usage is implied by the action but without explicit context or alternatives.

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