nexalayer_set_budget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, idempotent write. The description adds that it is 'consequential' and 'should require owner approval,' which is useful extra context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain what gets destroyed/overwritten or how idempotency_key interacts with re-calls. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no waste, front-loading the action and then the approval constraint. Efficient and clear, though slightly terse for a complex tool.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage requires a richer description to be complete. The current text leaves most parameters undocumented, doesn't explain the idempotency requirement, and doesn't clarify the approval workflow beyond a vague 'should require.' Significant gaps remain 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%, and the description mentions only 'key and daily spend limits,' which maps to just two of six parameters (key_limit_usd, daily_limit_usd). Parameters like paused, pause_on_exceed, alert_thresholds, and idempotency_key are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set key and daily spend limits.' This distinguishes it from the sibling nexalayer_get_budget (read) and other non-budget siblings. It doesn't explicitly name get_budget as the read counterpart, but the verb 'set' clearly signals a write operation.

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 says 'should require owner approval,' which implies a usage context (elevated permissions), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs the read-only nexalayer_get_budget or when not to use it. Usage is only implied, not clearly laid out.

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