set_budget_limit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify a key nuance: direction is not set here and comes from the category's floor/ceiling marking. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether setting a limit overwrites an existing one, validation rules (e.g., non-negative cents), or any side effects. Thus, it adds some transparency but not complete coverage.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and units; the second addresses the critical nuance about direction. It is front-loaded and to the point, earning a perfect score.

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 setter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the core purpose and the direction dependency, but it leaves gaps like overwrite behavior, whether the category must exist, and valid ranges for amount_cents. Given the availability of sibling tools like clear_budget_limit and mark_floor_category, more explicit interaction guidance would strengthen completeness.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the limit is monthly, in cents, and applies to either a category or a category-subcategory pair. This clarifies the role of 'amount_cents' and the optional nature of 'subcategory' beyond the bare schema. It doesn't detail constraints like minimum values, but the parameter names and this context are sufficient for basic 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Set a monthly budget limit (cents) for a category or (category, subcategory).' It uses a specific verb ('set'), identifies the resource ('budget limit'), specifies units ('cents'), and defines the scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like clear_budget_limit (removal) and mark_floor_category (marking direction).

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 context by noting that direction is handled by mark_floor_category, not this call, which indirectly guides the agent to use that tool for floor/ceiling marking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus clear_budget_limit or other alternatives, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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