set_monthly_cap

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the directional effect, default value, unit, and safety purpose, but it does not say whether the change applies immediately, how it interacts with existing usage, or what happens when the cap is reached. This is adequate for a simple setter but not richly transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The action and default value are front-loaded, and the rationale ('Protects against runaway loops') earns its place by giving context.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what to modify, the unit, a default, and the purpose. Remaining gaps around immediate effect or what 'configured key' refers to are secondary for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds crucial meaning by clarifying that the parameter is expressed in cents and by giving the default as 1000 cents = €10. This helps the agent understand monthly_cap_cents beyond the raw integer schema.

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 names a precise action ('Raise or lower'), a precise resource ('monthly spending cap of the configured key'), and a unit (cents), and adds a functional default. It is clearly distinct from the sibling getters and document/image tools.

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 implies use for controlling spend and mentions protection against runaway loops, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or conditions under which it should not be used. Since no sibling provides cap-setting, the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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