set_credit_limitSets, changes, or removes a credit limit for an ALSO Cloud account; omit the limit to clear it, and include a required comment explaining the reason.
WRITE: SetCreditLimit. Omit limit (or leave empty per API) to remove the credit limit; comment is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | New limit; omit to clear per API rules | |
| comment | Yes | Reason for setting/changing the credit limit | |
| accountId | Yes | ALSO Cloud Account ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known; the description still adds real value by disclosing that an omitted limit silently clears the existing credit limit and that comment is required. This reveals a consequential side effect the annotations do not. It stops short of describing permissions, validation failures, or response behavior.
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 short sentences with the write marker and the clearing behavior front-loaded; nothing wasted. The 'SetCreditLimit' token partly duplicates the tool name and title rather than adding information.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical input semantics but says nothing about what is returned, whether the previous limit is recoverable, or any error conditions. Adequate to call correctly, thin on consequences.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including 'omit to clear per API rules' and the reason field for comment. The description restates those facts ('Omit limit... comment is required') rather than adding syntax, range, or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('WRITE: SetCreditLimit') and adds the key semantic that omitting limit clears it, which lets an agent separate it from get_credit_limit. It doesn't explicitly name the read counterpart, but the write framing makes the distinction clear.
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?
It states the two operating modes (set a value vs. omit to remove) and that comment is mandatory, which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. It never says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as approve_credit_check_order or when a credit limit change is appropriate, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.