create_performance_budget

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, but it only lists content categories and does not clarify whether 'set' means generating a plan, persisting a configuration, replacing an existing budget, or returning recommendations. It also fails to disclose assumptions, side effects, or whether outputs are advisory.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and immediately lists the relevant budget dimensions. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain the output format, the effect of the required parameters, or what happens when features is omitted. For a 3-parameter tool with two required enums and no output documentation, this leaves important invocation questions unanswered.

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 schema already documents the three parameters and their enums. The description adds high-level context about budget categories but does not explain how project_type, scale, or features map to targets, which is the baseline 3 rather than higher.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('performance budget') and enumerates the concrete target categories: Core Web Vitals, bundle size, Lighthouse scores, network/server budgets, and optimization strategies. This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling planning tools, none of which cover performance budgeting.

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 implies the tool is used when a performance budget needs to be defined, but it does not state when to prefer it over closely related siblings like analyze_scalability or estimate_infrastructure, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implicit in the tool name.

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