ls_create_usage_record

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the action semantics already present in the input schema. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, authorization requirements, or concurrency considerations. The description repeats what the schema enum descriptions already convey.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and wastes no words. Every sentence provides necessary context (the resource and the two modes of operation). It is concise yet complete for its length.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that mark it as destructive, the description adequately covers the primary purpose and action choices. However, it does not describe the response format or success behavior, which is important since there is no output schema to guide the agent. It also omits any mention of prerequisites like requiring a valid subscription item or authentication.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the 'increment' and 'set' actions, which are already documented in the action parameter's description. Therefore, it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without extra semantic value.

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 the purpose: 'Report usage for a metered subscription item,' which defines the verb (report/create) and resource (usage record). It distinguishes the two possible actions, 'increment' and 'set,' which aligns with the sibling tools like ls_get_usage_record and ls_list_usage_records that are read-only.

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 provides implicit guidance on when to use the tool (for metered subscription usage reporting) and explains the two actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ls_get_usage_record or ls_list_usage_records. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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