project_budget

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (mutation, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an approval prerequisite, the scope boundary that client fees are excluded, and the instruction to operate on the current revision. It still omits reversibility and the effect on existing budget entries.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the approval warning leads, so an agent reads the critical constraint first. Every sentence carries weight, though the placement of 'Client fees are excluded' is slightly abrupt.

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?

For a five-required-param mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: parameter meanings, concurrency/conflict semantics for expectedRevision, and what the tool returns or changes on commit.

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 carry param meaning, but it only gestures at expectedRevision ('Use the current project revision') and implies budgetUsd. The roles of reviewer, approvalText, and projectId are left entirely unexplained for a fully-required 5-param schema.

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+resource: 'change the cumulative server-processing budget', and narrows scope by excluding client fees. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling budget_reconcile, so an agent must infer which budget tool applies when.

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 a clear gating condition ('ONLY after explicit researcher approval'), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use context an agent needs for a sensitive mutation. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to budget_reconcile/review_record as alternatives.

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