set_budget_amount

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a mutation (setting targets), describes the account reference formats accepted (full path, GUID, short GUID), and documents the period semantics including default behavior. It doesn't state idempotency or whether existing budget amounts are overwritten, but the core behavior is clear.

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 with a clear one-line summary followed by labeled Args documentation. Each parameter gets its own line with format explanation. Slightly verbose with the numbered period list but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists. The description exhaustively covers all parameters including format expectations and period semantics, which is the critical missing info. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description is complete for this moderately complex tool.

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 fully. It does: account format is documented with examples ('Expenses:Groceries'), amount format is exemplified ('500.00'), and period semantics (None/all, integer, quarter strings) are exhaustively covered. All 4 parameters have added meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Set a budget target for an account' with a specific verb (set) and resource (budget target for an account). It distinguishes from siblings like create_budget (creates the budget definition) and get_budget (reads), making the mutation purpose clear.

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 clear context on the primary use case (setting budget targets), and the period parameter options explain how to target specific periods vs all. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclude cases (e.g., when to use create_budget instead), though the task distinction is inferable from siblings.

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