raise_llm_budget

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden. It discloses the range ($5-$500), increments, carry-over of existing spend, monthly resets, and behavior when setting below current spend. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then details, then examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Slightly longer but appropriate for the content.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, behavioral nuances, and usage examples. It is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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% with a description for budgetUsd. The description adds context like 'hard cap against runaway spend', carry-over behavior, and concrete examples, which enrich understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Raise or lower') and the resource ('monthly LLM feature budget'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_llm_budget' by specifying it modifies the budget, and the 'Pro+ only' constraint adds specificity.

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 clear usage context with examples ('we hit 80% of the budget') and mentions the 'Pro+ only' eligibility. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the examples guide appropriate scenarios.

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