Set the quantity of a Limitation Feature (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the value is absolute, that repeated sends are harmless (idempotent), and that it bills on provisioned seats rather than occupied seats. It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, but for a no-annotation write tool this is a strong disclosure.

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 'WRITE.' and the core action, followed by tightly packed sentences that each add a distinct fact (billing semantics, idempotency, sibling routing, quote precondition). No filler sentences.

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-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, idempotency, and quantity semantics well. It could still mention permissions or failure modes, but per the rubric it need not explain return values since no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying the quantity semantics beyond the schema ('seats bought and not the seats occupied: that is what ProAbono bills on') and reinforcing that the value replaces rather than increments. It does not further explain customer_ref, feature_ref, or subscription_id.

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 ('Sets the current quantity of a Limitation Feature of a customer to an absolute value') and gives concrete examples (seats, projects, users). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings push_usage_increment and push_usage_enabling, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use rules: Limitation Features only, with named alternatives for metered Features (push_usage_increment) and OnOff Features (push_usage_enabling). It also states a precondition ('Quote it first with quote_usage_change when it is billable'), leaving little to inference.

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