Tighten an allocation plan

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: the operation can only reduce allocations or veto products, and it cannot increase the deterministic plan. This is a non-obvious invariant that helps an agent predict effects, though it does not describe return behavior or persistence details.

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 sentence with no filler: it states the operation, the actor, and the critical invariant front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, and it is far shorter than the schema while adding the most important behavioral rule.

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?

With five parameters, a nested plan object, and no output schema, an agent needs more than this description to invoke the tool correctly. The description does not define the deterministic plan, explain how to express reductions versus vetoes, differentiate the sibling tools, or describe the output. The monotonicity constraint is useful but not sufficient for full context.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level meaning. It only hints at allocations and product vetoes at a high level, leaving plan.decision, vetoProductIds, amountByProduct, maxTotalAllocation, and rationale unexplained. The schema's structural names carry some meaning, but the description does not compensate for the zero-coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply'), a resource ('critic decision' to an allocation plan), and a clear constraint: it may only reduce allocations or veto products, never increase the deterministic plan. This is specific enough to differentiate from the sibling tools by behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'Apply a critic decision' implies this tool is for incorporating critic feedback into an existing plan, and the monotonicity constraint clarifies when it applies. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as lucho_plan_treasury or lucho_create_receipt, nor any 'when not to use' guidance.

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