hibob_create_position_budget

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by documenting the exact return format (JSON with positionBudgetId), error message prefix ('Error:'), and the 10 requests/minute rate limit. It does not cover duplicate-creation consequences, but the idempotentHint=false annotation covers that signal.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples, and Rate limit sections, and the main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is slightly verbose due to some duplication with the schema, but all included details earn their place.

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 mutating tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers success/error output, rate limiting, and a practical example. The main missing context is explicit guidance about updating existing budgets versus creating new ones, though sibling names partly compensate.

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 has 100% coverage, documenting position_id and fields with required and optional field IDs. The description adds value with a concrete natural-language example mapping 'Budget 65k a year' to expectedBaseSalaryCurrencyValue, salaryPayPeriod, and currency, plus clarifying that fields is a flat mapping.

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 opens with 'Attach a salary and cost budget to a position,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. This differentiates the tool from siblings like hibob_update_position_budget and hibob_search_position_budgets by implying a create operation on a position 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?

The description provides a concrete example ('Budget 65k a year for that role') that helps an agent recognize when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of hibob_update_position_budget or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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