Goals Set Goal Budget Amount

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

The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which goes beyond annotations by specifying the nature of the write operation. Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, so the description adds moderate value but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and noting the potential data mutation. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a nontrivial domain (goal budgeting), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, parameter interactions, or how this tool relates to other budgeting tools, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose of parameters like goal_id, month, amount, account_id, or apply_to_future. It merely restates the tool's function, leaving agents without guidance on how to fill in the arguments.

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 goal budget amount') and the resource ('monarch data'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like budget_set_budget_amount, which also sets a budget amount, so the specificity is slightly limited.

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 alternatives such as budget_set_budget_amount or goals_get_goal_budget_amounts. The description lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or use cases.

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