ln_budget_set

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

The description discloses that the tool creates budget rules enforced by a pre-flight gate and that exceeding limits leads to rejection. However, it omits details on whether rules are overwritten, authorization requirements, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Extremely concise: one introductory sentence, followed by a clear bulleted Args list and Returns note. No redundant information; every element earns its place. Ideal front-loading of purpose.

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?

The description covers the return value (created/updated rule) and the enforcement mechanism. It lacks an explicit statement about overwriting existing rules, but given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Each parameter is explained with context: 'vendor' includes example domain, and limits include 'Maximum sats allowed' with clear scope (per transaction, day, month). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and title, compensating well for the 0% schema coverage signal.

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?

Clear verb 'Set' and resource 'spending limits' directly describe the tool's purpose. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like ln_budget_check and ln_budget_status, which handle checking or status rather than creation/update.

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 implies usage for setting limits enforced by a pre-flight gate, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ln_budget_check. No 'when not to use' or comparative guidance is provided.

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