upsert_budget

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses the upsert semantics ('Create or update') and the start_date validity requirement, which adds value beyond the annotation. However, it does not describe what happens on overwrite (e.g., notes replaced), potential side effects, or error behavior beyond the schema's mention of returning valid dates. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a crucial prerequisite. No fluff; every word earns its place. The structure is efficient and immediately useful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, the key constraint on start_date, and a pointer to get_budget_settings. It does not describe return values or error responses, but those are often omitted for simple tools. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, especially with full schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description repeats the start_date constraint ('must be a valid budget period start') already present in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Create or update'), a resource ('a budget'), and the scope ('for a category and budget period'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like remove_budget and get_budget_summary by its purpose, and the upsert nature is explicit.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (create or update a budget) and references get_budget_settings for the required start_date format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using remove_budget for deletion or get_budget_summary for viewing. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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