edit_expenseUpdate an existing expense record with new amount, date, category, subcategory, or note. Fix mistakes or adjust spending details by providing the expense ID and the fields to change.
Edit an existing expense.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | New date | |
| note | No | New note | |
| amount | No | New amount | |
| category | No | New category | |
| expense_id | Yes | ID of expense to edit | |
| subcategory | No | New subcategory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that an existing expense is edited and does not disclose whether updates are partial, how errors like a missing expense_id are handled, or what the response contains.
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 and contains no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing little beyond a literal restatement of the tool's name.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly. Missing context includes update semantics, return value, and error behavior.
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 parameters are already well documented as 'New date', 'New amount', etc. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.
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 identifies the action ('Edit') and the resource ('an existing expense'), distinguishing it from add/delete/list siblings. It does not enumerate which attributes can be changed, but the input schema fills that in.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus add_expense, delete_expense, or list_expenses. The description does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.