create_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose some meaningful behaviors: that year defaults to current year, start_date falls back to January 1, and start_date overrides year. However, it doesn't disclose whether creation can overwrite existing budgets, what happens with duplicate names, whether any fields are immutable, or what the return/response looks like. Since an output schema exists, some return details are covered elsewhere, but side effects and constraints remain understated.

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 well-structured using an Args-style list with clear indentation, default values, and concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, adding semantic value without redundancy. It's appropriately detailed for a tool with 6 parameters and zero schema coverage.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers all 6 parameters thoroughly with defaults, types, and precedence rules. An output schema exists to handle return-value documentation. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of validation rules (e.g., min/max year), constraints, or error conditions, which would make it complete for a creation tool that likely has side effects.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries full parameter documentation burden — and it does an excellent job. It explains defaulting behavior (year defaults to current), precedence rules (year ignored when start_date provided), valid period_type values (monthly/quarterly/weekly), and gives concrete usage examples (start_date='2024-01-01'). It even motivates the start_date parameter for historical comparison.

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 'Create a new budget' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_budget, set_budget_amount, get_budget_report, and list_budgets. The detailed parameter documentation further clarifies the scope and semantics of the creation operation.

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 rich parameter semantics (e.g., when start_date vs year is used, historical budget example) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when NOT to use it. It gives context on mid-year vs historical budget creation but no explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tool references. No when-to-use guidance is provided versus related budget tools.

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