athena_budget_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral constraint: token/compute dimensions are accepted only when supplied by an observable client. However, it does not describe write semantics (e.g., idempotency, upsert behavior), error handling, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a necessary constraint without deviating from the topic. Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a brief purpose and one constraint, leaving the agent underinformed about parameter meanings, invocation prerequisites, return values, and edge cases. This is insufficient for reliable use.

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 mentions 'token/compute dimensions' but does not map this to any of the six parameters. Required parameters run_key and resources are unexplained, and optional parameters (actor, scope, budget, outcome) receive no guidance. Only minimal compensation is provided.

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 action 'Persist' with a specific resource 'one measured organization/resource budget observation'. This distinguishes it from siblings like athena_budget_schedule (scheduling) and athena_budget_summary (aggregation) by emphasizing a single observation record. The second sentence adds a constraint without obscuring the core purpose.

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 this tool is for persisting a measured budget observation, and the constraint about token/compute dimensions gives a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. related tools like athena_budget_schedule or athena_budget_summary, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.

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