Assign a budgeted amount to a YNAB category

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds important context: the budgeted amount is replaced (not added to). This goes beyond annotations but misses details like permissions or response behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and key behavioral distinction. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, units, and replacement semantics. No output schema exists, but for a straightforward mutation tool, this is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., milliunits already described). With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'budgeted amount for a category in a specific month', and distinguishes it as the 'assign money' action, differentiating from sibling tools like ynab_update_category which modify category metadata.

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 explicitly notes that the amount replaces rather than adds to the existing budgeted amount, providing critical behavior. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like ynab_update_category or ynab_get_category.

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