firestarter_set_spend_cap

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining that setting disable:true removes the cap entirely and outlining the workflow for rejected purchases. It also includes a strong behavioral directive ('never tell the buyer you cannot change the cap'). While annotations already indicate destructiveness and idempotence, the description enriches these with specific semantics.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and uses multiple sentences to convey examples, the key workflow, and the read alternative. While the synonym list is a bit verbose, every sentence adds value and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, the SPEND_CAP_EXCEEDED workflow, and how to disable the cap. It appropriately relies on the schema for alert_threshold_pct and on annotations for safety profile, though it doesn't mention potential return values or prerequisites like permissions.

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 schema covers all three parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by mapping user phrases to spend_cap_dollars (e.g., 'increase my spending cap to $100') and clarifying the effect of disable:true, which helps the agent select and set parameters appropriately.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Raise, lower, set, or remove the buyer's monthly spend cap'. It also distinguishes from the sibling read tool by noting 'Use firestarter_spend_cap to read the current value without changing it', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'Call this whenever the buyer wants to increase, raise, bump, set, lower, or change their cap'. It also provides a concrete scenario (SPEND_CAP_EXCEEDED) and names the alternative for reading, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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