update_usage_limit

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

Discloses that new values apply immediately, conditions and group_by are immutable, returns updated id, and does not clear accumulated usage. This adds value beyond annotations (which only indicate non-destructive and non-read-only).

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and differentiation, followed by behavioral details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 an update tool with 6 parameters and annotations present, the description covers purpose, parameters, return, immutability, and alternative tools. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by listing the specific fields (name, credit_limit, alert_threshold, reset schedule, reset target) which maps to parameter names, adding semantic grouping. However, it does not add new parameter-level details beyond 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?

Clearly states it updates specific fields (name, credit_limit, etc.) by id, and distinguishes from sibling update_rate_limit. The verb 'update' and resource 'usage limit' are explicit, and the description differentiates from similar tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: contrasts with update_rate_limit for throttling, notes immutability of conditions and group_by, and directs to reset_usage_limit_entity for clearing accumulated usage. This helps the agent choose the right tool.

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