Создать или изменить бюджет

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a valuable behavioral invariant: exactly one identifier must be filled according to scope_type, with a specific mapping and the OVERALL case requiring none. It also clarifies that limits are in rubles. Annotations already establish that this is a write operation, so the additional context is meaningful.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary create/update behavior, and every sentence carries necessary information. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 full schema coverage, the description covers the main upsert behavior and the key scope_type invariant. The only notable omission is whether omitted fields on update are reset or preserved, which is a minor gap for a tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics not present in individual schema descriptions: the one-identifier rule tied to scope_type and the ruble denomination for limit_amount. This goes beyond what the schema alone communicates.

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 creates or updates a budget and explains exactly how the two modes differ based on the presence of the 'budget' parameter. It is specific about the resource and action, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like budgets_list, budgets_get, and budgets_delete.

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 gives clear conditional usage: omit budget to create, provide budget to change. It does not explicitly point to sibling tools for alternatives, but the create/update distinction is actionable and not misleading.

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