firestarter_set_auto_approve_limit

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint:true and destructiveHint:true, but the description goes beyond by explaining the persistent, account-level scope: 'It applies to EVERY future order on the account, across all surfaces (chat, dashboard, API), until changed.' It also details the threshold behavior (orders at/below auto-approved, above pause) and the disable semantics, adding valuable behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is slightly verbose than necessary, containing several layered explanations. Still, every sentence contributes meaning, and it remains clear and readable.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's effect, persistence, threshold behavior, maximum limit, parameter semantics, safety requirement to confirm amount with buyer, success criterion, and points to the read alternative. There are no significant gaps.

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% with both parameters fully described. The description adds an example ('50 for $50 per order') and clarifies OR-exclusivity, but the schema already states that disable is mutually exclusive and describes the 0 semantics. Thus the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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's function: 'Set or disable the buyer's PERSISTENT, account-level auto-approval limit for purchases.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from the read-only sibling by explicitly directing to 'Use firestarter_auto_approve_limit to read the current value without changing it.'

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 explicit usage context and an alternative: 'Use firestarter_auto_approve_limit to read the current value without changing it.' It also gives strong procedural guidance, such as 'Always confirm the exact dollar amount with the buyer before setting it — never invent, assume, or round a value the buyer did not state' and 'Only report success after this tool returns a confirmation.'

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