Report consumption of a metered Feature (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the additive (non-idempotent) semantics, that a repeated call double-counts, that no absolute/idempotent fallback exists, and that retry-after-timeout is the caller's responsibility. That is exactly the behavioral risk an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation type and core semantics, then alternatives, then the double-count warning and the quoting step. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 5-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when-to-use, sibling disambiguation and the critical idempotency caveat. It does not mention required permissions/auth or what the call returns, which are minor gaps but real for a write endpoint.

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 100%, so the increment, date_stamp, feature_ref, customer_ref and subscription_id parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the delta-vs-running-total meaning of increment and the notion that date is the consumption timestamp, but adds little that the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the operation type ("WRITE"), the verb (adds an increment) and the exact resource (Consumption Feature quantity of a customer), with concrete examples (messages sent, API calls, gigabytes stored). It also explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (push_usage_quantity, push_usage_enabling), so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: consumption Features with this tool, Limitation Features with push_usage_quantity, OnOff with push_usage_enabling, and pre-quoting with quote_usage_change when billable. Conditions and alternatives are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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