ClockNext: create credit

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral details: the tool reads live model prices, computes base price and price-per-credit automatically, and stores only the computed price. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits detailed error or duplicate-handling behavior.

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 opens with a strong one-sentence purpose and remains readable, but it is somewhat long with multiple asides (dashboard alternative, plan granting). Every sentence adds value, though a tighter version would be even more concise.

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 the tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and annotations that already flag write behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, pricing computation, alternatives, and downstream plan usage, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra algorithmic meaning by explaining how models and marginPercent combine for model-grounded pricing and why agentKey is durable, which goes beyond simple field definitions.

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 it creates a credit type (a token-metered entitlement) with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as get/update/archive/list credits and create_plan by describing its unique role in the system.

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 names the dashboard as the first-class alternative and labels this tool as the fallback. It also gives prerequisites like using enabled catalog models from clocknext_list_models and mentions how the credit is granted via a plan, making when-to-use guidance clear.

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