dhp_note_spend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet discloses genuinely useful behavior: the currency is USD and over-spend causes the supervisor to fail the handoff closed. It still omits whether calls accumulate, whether an over-budget call errors immediately, idempotency, and any permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. No filler, though the breach sentence could be slightly tighter in phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-required-param mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about accumulation semantics and failure behavior when the budget is breached.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only that the amount is USD; handoff_id and worker_id are left to the parameter names alone, with no scope or format detail.

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: records spend in USD against a handoff's budget. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dhp_note_activity or dhp_record_effect by the budget-spend scope, though it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

The description implies you call this when spend is incurred, but gives no when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against the many sibling note/record tools. The budget-breach sentence motivates the call but is a consequence, not usage guidance.

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