wan_budget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does disclose that this is a write and that confirmation is required, which is important. However, it leaves the confirmation protocol unexplained (how confirmation_id/confirm_token are obtained or used), and says nothing about reversibility or side effects beyond the write itself.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains only high-signal information: the operation, the resource, and the two most decision-relevant traits (write, confirmation). There is no filler.

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?

This is a write tool with a confirmation flow, four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations; the one-line description is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It correctly warns about confirmation but does not explain the flow or the meaning of the parameters.

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, and it almost entirely does not. 'Requires confirmation' hints at confirm_token/confirmation_id, but the required 'param' field and 'user_code' are left completely unspecified, making it impossible to know what values to provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') and a specific resource ('WAN data budget'), and the parenthetical immediately flags this as a write operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to cover WAN budget configuration, so confusion risk is low.

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 makes the intended use clear (configuration/write rather than status read), but it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites beyond confirmation. The 'write' marker is an implicit exclusion of read-only use, not an explicit routing rule.

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