Set a new budgeted amount for a category in any month, keeping your Actual Budget plan in sync.
Set the budgeted amount for a category in a specific month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Month (YYYY-MM or natural language). Defaults to current month. | |
| amount | Yes | New budgeted amount (human-readable, e.g., 5000.00) | |
| category | Yes | Category name or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not mention overwrite behavior, scope of impact, or any side effects beyond the action itself.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and scope efficiently, and every word earns its place.
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 simple setter with complete schema descriptions and idempotentHint annotation, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks any usage context or behavioral detail beyond the action, leaving some room for improvement without being inadequate.
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 coverage is 100%, with meaningful descriptions for all three parameters including month's default and amount format. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('set') with a clear resource ('budgeted amount') and scope ('for a category in a specific month'). It clearly distinguishes this write operation from the many read-only budget sibling tools like get_budget_month and get_budget_summary.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the contrast with sibling getters makes the intended use case (modifying budget amounts) implicitly clear. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.