acp_set_budget

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a mutating open-world operation. The description adds minimal context (underlying function, optional token override) but does not explain side effects, permissions, or reverts. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 destructiveHint=true and no output schema, more context is needed about return behavior, prerequisites (e.g., job existence, token approval), and consequences of overriding an existing budget. The description is too sparse for a mutating operation.

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 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description only echoes the 'optional token override' for paymentToken, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Set a job budget'), the target resource ('Virtuals ACPRouter'), and the specific underlying function ('setBudgetWithPaymentToken'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acp_fund_job or erc8183_set_budget.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'optional token override' hints at a default behavior, but there is no when-not or alternative tool referenced. Sibling erc8183_set_budget suggests a parallel standard, but this is not addressed.

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