log_project_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether logging is immutable, modifies project state), permissions beyond Enterprise license, idempotency, or rate limits. The description focuses on parameters rather than behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args list. Every line is informative, no fluff. It is 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters and license requirement adequately. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions (e.g., invalid project_id), validation behavior, or examples. This makes it minimally complete for a simple logging tool but leaves some uncertainty.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all 6 parameters with meaningful context: category with specific enum values, amount in configured currency, optional printer_name and job_id for traceability. This adds significant value beyond the schema (which only provides names, types, and titles). Minor gaps: no format constraints on 'amount' (e.g., positive) or 'description' length.

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 states 'Log a cost entry against a project.' This is a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('cost entry') with clear scope ('against a project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' (creates projects) and 'project_cost_summary' (summarizes costs).

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 mentions 'Requires Enterprise license' as a constraint but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., estimate_cost, project_cost_summary). It implies usage for recording actual costs to existing projects but lacks exclusions or guidance on alternative tools. Given the large sibling list, some differentiation would help.

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