update_allocation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds that this modifies an allocation and instructs to ask user confirmation. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or irreversibility, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, avoids redundancy. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects), the description is brief. It covers purpose and usage boundaries but does not explain the parametrical structure, return value, or effects of different parameter combinations. The detailed schema compensates partially, but missing output schema and minimal context leave gaps.

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 covers all six parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how to structure rules or the difference between 'rule' and 'rules'.

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?

Description clearly states it modifies an existing cost allocation, using specific verb 'modify'. It distinguishes from creating (create_allocation) and viewing (list_allocations), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (modify existing allocation) and when not to (creating or viewing), naming alternative tools. Also instructs to ask user for confirmation, providing clear usage boundaries.

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