Create or update a budget policy

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

Adds authorization class info beyond annotations. However, does not mention side effects, idempotency behavior, or handling of updates vs creates. With openWorldHint=true, the description should note that extra fields may be accepted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words, but overly brief. Lacks essential details; conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness. Could be improved by including parameter guidance while maintaining brevity.

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 (nested body, required fields, output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a budget policy is, how create vs update is determined, or what the output contains. Agent lacks context to use effectively.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters (amount, scopeType, scopeId, etc.). The nested structure and required fields are entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema. This is a critical 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?

Clearly states 'Create or update a budget policy', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling budget tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_budgets_overview (read) or pc_patch_companies_by_company_id_budgets (patch budgets), missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use post vs patch for budget policies). Missing prerequisites or context for creation vs update. The description only states the HTTP method and auth class, which is insufficient for decision-making.

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