Log multiple expenses in one go, with individual validation so valid entries save even if others fail.
Log several expenses at once. Each item takes the same fields as add_expense.
Items are validated individually: a bad entry is reported in errors while the
rest still save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key runtime behavior: items are validated individually, bad entries are reported in `errors`, and valid entries still save. This partial-failure behavior is valuable beyond what the schema or tool name implies. It does not mention obvious write side effects, but 'Log' sufficiently implies mutation.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds the important partial-validation behavior. Every sentence 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 simple batch-wrapper tool, the description covers purpose, item schema source, and failure behavior. Output schema existence covers return shape. The main missing pieces are explicit routing to add_expense for single expenses and any batch-size constraints, but these are minor given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter `items` is an untyped object array with additionalProperties allowed. The description compensates by stating that each item takes the same fields as add_expense, which is the critical semantic information the schema lacks. It does not enumerate those fields, but it directs the agent to the right source.
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 what the tool does: 'Log several expenses at once.' It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling add_expense by emphasizing batch behavior, while also noting that item fields match add_expense. This makes the tool's identity and scope immediately clear.
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 phrase 'Log several expenses at once' implies that this tool is for batch entry, and referencing add_expense suggests the singular alternative. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over add_expense or update_expense, nor does it provide when-not/exclusion guidance. Usage expectations are inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.