Reserve Budget

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about returning a reservation_id for later commit/release and the ALLOW/not ALLOW decision. However, it does not describe any potential side effects like holding budget or timeout behavior, which would be valuable for transparency.

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 two sentences, highly concise, with key information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: first defines the purpose, second provides usage scope and alternative.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, enums, and a sibling set of 8 other tools), the description is too brief. It covers the core purpose and usage guidelines but lacks details on parameter semantics and expected behavior. The output schema exists, but the description should at least hint at what parameters are essential.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters. While the schema itself defines constraints and enums, the description adds no guidance on how to set parameters like estimate, overagePolicy, or idempotencyKey. This is a significant gap.

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 the tool's action ('Reserve budget'), the resource ('before a costly operation'), and the outcome ('returns a reservation_id'). It also distinguishes from the sibling cycles_decide by explicitly naming it and explaining the difference (reserving vs. lightweight preflight check).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before a costly operation') and when not to use it ('For lightweight preflight checks without reserving, use cycles_decide instead'). It also provides a clear instruction: 'If decision is not ALLOW, do not proceed.'

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