expense_create_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate budgetId, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic purpose statement, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters (5 required), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the complexity of the input structure (nested objects), expected response format, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the broader expense management context among sibling tools.

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 only 17% (only 'categories' has a description), and the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what budgetId represents, what format categories/costCenters should use, or the meaning of fiscalYear and period beyond what's in the enum. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new budget for expense planning'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from the sibling tool 'create_budget_template' - both involve budget creation, so the distinction isn't explained.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_budget_template' or other expense-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic purpose statement.

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