create_budget_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the mutually exclusive cost entry methods (quantity-based vs. lump sum), which is a key behavioral rule not obvious from the schema. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the essential behavioral trait is covered.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the purpose and the key cost-modeling choices.

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 creation tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core ambiguity (how to specify costs) while other parameters are reasonably inferable from their names. It does not explain required-field prerequisites or return values, but for a create operation this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for cost-related parameters (planned_qty, planned_unit_cost, is_lump_sum, planned_total_cost) by explaining their relationship. However, the remaining 10 parameters (e.g., uom_id, boq_code, analytic_account_id) are left entirely to their names, which are self-explanatory but lack depth.

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 verb 'Add' and the specific resource 'a new BOQ line to a budget'. It distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like update_budget_line and search_budget_lines by emphasizing it creates a new line.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (when adding a new line) and gives specific guidance on how to set costs: either planned_qty + planned_unit_cost or is_lump_sum=True with planned_total_cost. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_budget_line for existing lines.

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