Set Budget Amount

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of setting an amount is consistent. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it overwrites or adjusts existing budgets, permission requirements, or side effects), relying entirely on annotations for transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. However, it is overly brief and could afford to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks parameter semantics and usage context. It does not explain how the amount is interpreted (e.g., currency, decimal places), which is necessary for correct use.

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 does not explain the parameters beyond their names. The agent receives no guidance on valid values, formatting, or meaning of 'category_id' and 'amount'. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 budget amount for a category.' uses a specific verb ('set') and clearly identifies the resource ('budget amount') and scope ('for a category'), effectively differentiating from sibling tools like 'get_budgets' and 'analyze_spending_patterns' which are read or analysis operations.

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 implies usage for setting budget amounts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context from sibling tools provides some differentiation, but the description itself offers no usage guidance.

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