Set Savings Goal Budget Amount

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the month argument defaults to the current month and accepts any date within the target month, and apply_to_future extends the change to later months, which materially changes the blast radius of the write.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block where each entry is a single meaningful clause. Docstring formatting is slightly verbose for a tool description but no sentence is wasted.

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 four-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers defaults, format flexibility, and the future-month propagation flag. The remaining gap is whether setting an amount replaces or adds to an existing plan and what errors arise for an invalid goal_id.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: it names all four parameters, gives the accepted month formats and default, explains apply_to_future's effect, and points to get_savings_goals for goal_id. It stops short of specifying the amount's currency/units or confirming that an existing amount is overwritten.

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 and resource: setting a savings goal's planned monthly contribution. It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_savings_goals (which it references as the source of goal_id), but it never distinguishes itself from set_budget_amount, the other amount-setting tool in the sibling list, leaving a real ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the goal_id argument notes it comes from get_savings_goals, which is a useful workflow hint, and apply_to_future sketches the scope of the write. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus set_budget_amount, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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