Set a monetary limit for a budget period by specifying the budget ID, amount, start, and end dates. Define spending caps to track and control expenses within a chosen timeframe.
Set a monetary limit for a budget period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| currency_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Set a monetary limit' without disclosing any side effects, such as whether an existing limit is overwritten, whether the limit is validated against the budget period, or whether permissions are required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action, which is efficient. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of detail, so it is concise but not necessarily complete.
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 annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot know what to pass for 'id', what format 'amount' should take, or what the response will be. The description only states the basic action and leaves all operational details undefined, making it inadequate for correct 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 0% and the description adds no information about the five parameters. It does not explain what 'id' refers to (likely a budget ID), the format of 'amount' (currency units), the date formats for 'start' and 'end', or the purpose of 'currency_code'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 'Set a monetary limit for a budget period' clearly identifies the verb (set) and resource (monetary limit for a budget period), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_budget_limits or delete_budget_limit, which share the same budget-limit resource. A clearer distinction, e.g., 'Create a new budget limit,' would help an agent select it correctly.
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 does not mention that this creates a new limit, nor does it contrast with list_budget_limits or delete_budget_limit. Without any usage context or exclusions, an agent must infer the appropriate scenario from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.