Update Month Category Budget

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: false' already indicates this is a mutation tool. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it mentions '[1 API call]' which hints at performance characteristics, but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to existing budgeted amounts. For a mutation tool, more behavioral details would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains the purpose. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and scope, but lacks details about return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of budget updates, more context would help the agent use this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'budget_id' interacts with 'month') or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Update the budgeted/assigned amount'), the resource ('for a category in a specific month'), and the purpose ('This is how you allocate money to categories'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_category' (which likely updates category metadata) by focusing on month-specific budget allocation.

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 budget allocation to categories in specific months, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_category' or 'get_month_category'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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