update_category_for_month

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is idempotent, effects of changing a past month's budget, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The return value is not described (though an output schema exists externally).

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 reasonably structured with a clear first sentence and an 'Args' block, but it is verbose (e.g., lengthy explanation for exclude_fields). The first sentence is front-loaded, but the overall length could be reduced without losing necessary details.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description partially fills gaps but is missing behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects). The presence of an output schema (mentioned in context) reduces the need for return value description, but mutation details are still lacking. Sibling comparisons are minimal.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: explains format for 'month' (YYYY-MM-DD, first of month), unit for 'budgeted' (dollars), usage for 'plan_id' (use list_plans), and details for 'exclude_fields' (default behavior, override, return all). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('budgeted amount for a category in a specific month'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'update_category' (which updates category metadata) and 'get_category_for_month' (which retrieves data).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that to update category-level settings (not per-month budget), one should use 'update_category'.

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