accelo_create_object_budget_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mutation ('Create') and lists parameters, but omits permissions, side effects, idempotency, error behavior, and rate limits. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and then a structured Args block that efficiently documents every parameter. There is no wasteful repetition, though the list format is somewhat schema-like rather than narrative.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and implies the return value ('fields: Additional fields to return on the created material'). However, it lacks essential behavioral context such as authentication needs, error handling, and side effects that an agent would need 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It documents each parameter with meaning: budget_id (ID of object budget), title (material title/description), quantity, unit_cost (cost per unit), billable ('yes' or 'no'), and fields (additional fields to return). This is thorough, though it lacks constraints like numeric ranges or validation rules.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new material line item on an object budget'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like update or list. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 only states what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like accelo_update_object_budget_material or accelo_list_object_budget_materials. No prerequisites, when-not conditions, or routing hints are provided.

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