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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly marks the operation as 'WRITE,' explains idempotency ('sending it twice is harmless'), and clarifies the billing semantics (provisioned seats, not occupied). It does not cover permissions or side effects beyond setting the value, but the provided context is substantial for a mutation tool.

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 'WRITE' and a concise purpose statement, then efficiently guides the value to send, idempotency, alternatives, and a prerequisite. Each sentence adds distinct information without repetition or filler, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage rules, key parameter semantics, and relevant alternatives. It omits details like error handling or return values, but these are not essential given the lack of an output schema and the clarity of the operation. The description is sufficient for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by clarifying the crucial semantic of quantity_current: send the number of provisioned seats, not occupied, because that is what ProAbono bills on. It also explains why no increment parameter exists, helping the agent understand the absolute-value contract.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Sets the current quantity of a Limitation Feature of a customer to an absolute value,' with concrete examples (seats, projects, users). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from add_feature_consumption and set_feature_enabled, making sibling differentiation unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Limitation Features only') and names exact alternatives for other feature types ('use add_feature_consumption for a metered Feature and set_feature_enabled for an OnOff one'). It also instructs to call quote_usage_change first for billable features, leaving no room for incorrect selection.

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