Update company budget

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

The description adds the HTTP method (PATCH) and authorization class (board_or_agent) beyond the annotations, which indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructiveness. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like whether the update is incremental or replaces the entire budget, or any side effects (e.g., budget enforcement). The annotation set does not provide clear behavioral guidance, so the description carries some burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise, with two sentences that convey the operation and authorization. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While not verbose, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no schema descriptions, presence of output schema), the description lacks essential context. It does not explain the semantics of 'budget' (e.g., monthly budget for the whole company or per agent?), whether the update is additive or full replacement, or any constraints beyond the schema. The output schema exists but is not detailed, so the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not mention any parameter details. Parameters like budgetMonthlyCents (integer, min 0) and companyId (string) are left entirely to the schema, which lacks explanations. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema structure.

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 title 'Update company budget' and description clearly state the action (update) and resource (company budget), with the HTTP method PATCH adding specificity. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling budget tools like get budgets overview or agent budget updates, the name and purpose are sufficiently clear for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., other budget tools, company update tools). It mentions an authorization class but does not contextualize usage scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding between tools.

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