Set the workspace usage cap

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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds useful operational context: the workspace-scoped write key requirement and the meaning of null values for clearing the cap. It could say more about side effects, but the key behavioral facts are covered.

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 definition is three short sentences with no wasted text. The primary operation is front-loaded, followed by the clearing behavior and authorization requirement.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, clearing behavior, and auth requirement. It leaves minor gaps around partial-null semantics and idempotency-key usage, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description carries extra burden. It explains the cap field's minimum and the alert email's purpose, and clarifies that null values clear the cap. The idempotency_key parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema itself documents it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Set a monthly qualified-install cap') plus the associated alert email. This clearly distinguishes the mutation from the sibling read tool get_usage_cap without needing to name it explicitly.

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?

It states how to set the cap, how to clear it by passing null for both values, and the authorization requirement. It does not explicitly name read alternatives such as get_usage_cap, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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