Set Cost Threshold

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true); the description goes well beyond with the actual side effect of hitting the cap, the server-side write flag required to execute, and the delayed-effective-date behavior disclosed via the appliesFromNextMonth result field. That is exactly the auth/precondition/aftermath context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then enforcement consequence, then prerequisite and timing caveat. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the one result field an agent must check (appliesFromNextMonth). For a mutation tool it covers consequences, prerequisites, and timing; it could still state whether re-setting overwrites an existing threshold and whether a threshold identifier is returned.

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 teamId/userId omission semantics, maxAmount currency basis, and the VOICE enum meaning. The description's mention of scope targets and usage types largely restates that, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Set a monthly spend cap") and names the exact scope options (organisation, team, user) plus the covered usage types. This clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like telgea_list_cost_thresholds, telgea_get_user_cost_threshold, and the destructive telgea_remove_cost_threshold.

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 the operational consequence ("Reaching it pauses that usage") and the hard prerequisite (TELGEA_ENABLE_WRITES=true), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of explicitly routing to siblings — e.g. to inspect existing caps before setting, use telgea_list_cost_thresholds, or to undo, use telgea_remove_cost_threshold.

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