create_budget_build

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It only states 'Create,' implying a mutating operation, but does not disclose whether it saves to a database, overwrites existing builds, or produces a temporary result. No side effects, prerequisites, or output behavior are mentioned.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and object. However, it is under-specified for a create operation, which prevents a perfect score, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this description is too minimal for a create tool. It does not explain what happens when the budget version is created, whether it persists, or how it relates to other build tools. The agent has no way to predict the tool's full behavior or return value.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, including budget_tier's allowed values ('league-start', 'low', 'medium'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the 'budget-friendly' theme, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and clearly names the resource: 'a league-start/budget-friendly version of a build.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_build or list_builds, which have different purposes. However, it does not elaborate on what 'budget-friendly version' entails, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as optimize_tree or analyze_build could be related, but the description gives no context for when creating a budget build is appropriate or how it differs from other build-related operations.

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