cor_save_allocation

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'Create or update' implying mutation, but does not explain what happens on conflict, required permissions, or side effects. The 'etc.' indicates incompleteness.

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?

Description is short with two sentences. First sentence states purpose clearly. Second sentence lists parameter examples. No fluff, but could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameters).

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 complexity (nested object, output schema exists but unmentioned, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, behavior on create vs update, or required fields beyond examples. Needs more detail for a mutation tool.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description partially compensates by listing example keys (projectId, userId, etc.). However, it is vague ('etc.') and does not specify data types, constraints, or required vs optional fields. Adds some value but insufficient.

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 'Create or update a resource allocation', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cor_delete_allocation and cor_get_allocations_by_project by implying a write operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like cor_change_hours_status or cor_add_project_collaborator are not contrasted.

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