update_expenseUpdate an existing expense by ID. Requires expenses:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Expense ID | |
| notes | No | Notes | |
| amount | No | Expense amount | |
| project_id | No | Project ID | |
| category_id | No | Cost category ID | |
| description | No | Expense description | |
| receipt_url | No | Receipt URL | |
| expense_date | No | Expense date (ISO 8601) | |
| work_order_id | No | Work order ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's main added value is the auth requirement ('expenses:write scope'), which is genuinely useful. It stops short of explaining partial-update behavior (what happens to omitted fields) or the destructive implications of an update, which the annotations merely hint at.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action (update expense by ID) ahead of the scope requirement. Every clause earns its place.
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 a mutation tool with no output schema, the combination of rich annotations, full schema coverage, and the disclosed write scope covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics, which is not addressed but is partially mitigated by the idempotentHint.
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%, and the required 'id' plus eight optional fields are all documented in the schema. The description adds only that the update is keyed by ID, which is already implied by the schema; no additional format or constraint semantics are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing expense by ID'), which clearly identifies what the tool does and that it targets an existing record. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings beyond the resource name (e.g., vs. create_expense, bulk_update, delete_expense), leaving some inference to the agent.
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 names no conditions for when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update or create_expense. The only guidance given is the required scope ('expenses:write'), which is a precondition rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.