infra_billing_create_infra_billing_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it only restates the HTTP endpoint. It omits auth/permission requirements, side effects, and the fact that without confirm:true a preview is returned rather than a write — a meaningful behavior documented only in the schema.

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?

It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the raw 'POST /api/infra-billing/history' path and the boilerplate 'Tags: Infra Billing Controller' add little value over the tool name. Minimal but not wasteful-to-the-point-of-harm.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested body object, and a thin description. The critical safe-write behavior (confirm-based preview) is left to the schema, and there is no indication of the response or error conditions, leaving the definition incomplete.

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 50%: the confirm parameter and the nested body fields (amount, billedAt) are documented in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already declares. It neither explains the confirm-then-execute flow nor the provider/amount/date semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create infra billing history'), which is clear enough to separate from the read (get_infra_billing_records) and delete (delete_infra_billing_record) siblings. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself or note the provider/node relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions such as needing an existing providerUuid (which create_infra_provider would supply) or when to record billing history. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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