configure_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a configuration/mutation action, it doesn't specify whether changes are persistent, reversible, or require specific permissions. It also doesn't mention what happens when limits are exceeded or if there are rate limits on configuration changes.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple configuration tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 budget configuration tool in a payment/transaction system with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship to other payment tools, what units are used (satoshis are only mentioned in schema), whether configuration is persistent, or what happens when limits are reached during payment operations.

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 100%, with both parameters ('per_request' and 'per_session') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Set spending limits for the session' clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('spending limits'), with 'for the session' providing useful scope context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_budget_status' or explain how this relates to payment operations in the broader toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a budget must be configured before making payments), when it should be invoked (e.g., at session start), or how it interacts with sibling payment tools like 'pay_invoice' or 'get_budget_status'.

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