create_allocation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by instructing to confirm parameters before execution. However, it does not elaborate on what exactly is destroyed or other behavioral traits like necessary permissions or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose and provide clear boundaries. No extraneous information, every sentence is valuable.

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 objects, mutually exclusive rule vs. rules), the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of rules or guide on choosing between 'rule' and 'rules'. The schema helps, but more context is needed for full agent comprehension.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only generically mentions 'allocation parameters' without deepening understanding of the rich nested structures.

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 is for creating a new cost allocation rule, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_allocations (viewing) and create_label (labels), avoiding ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (user wants to create a new allocation rule), when not to use (viewing existing allocations or creating labels), and provides alternatives. Also instructs to ask user for confirmation before executing, setting clear usage expectations.

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