Boost Truly Unlimited

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

Annotations cover safety (not read-only, openWorld, idempotent, not destructive), and the description meaningfully adds resource-consumption behavior: it spends one of the designer's free monthly boosts or a purchased team boost, and spends nothing when a boost is already active. That is real side-effect transparency beyond the annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information (effect, spend source, precondition, edge case). The critical precondition arrives third rather than first, which slightly weakens front-loading but wastes nothing.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description covers effect, cost of the action, the consent precondition, and the already-boosted branch. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the run_now schema description already states it only starts parked jobs and never spends a boost. The description's 'run_now: true asks for only that' largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 effect: a boost doubles today's budget and starts parked runs, spending a free monthly or team boost. That is a clear verb+resource. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the sibling list is entirely unrelated design tools, so differentiation is not needed here.

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 gives a strong, explicit precondition: only call after the user explicitly agrees to spend a boost in this conversation. It also explains the already-boosted case. No alternative tool is named, but no plausible alternative exists among the siblings.

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