Modify the most recently recorded expense by changing its amount, category, merchant, date, note, or tags without needing to locate its ID.
Correct the most recently logged expense without needing its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| merchant | No |
| 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a mutation operation but does not describe whether it performs a partial update or full overwrite, what happens if no expense exists, or whether the change is reversible. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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 one tight sentence that front-loads the primary action and the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves critical unknowns: whether calling with no arguments is valid, which fields can be corrected, and how 'most recently logged' is determined. The output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for missing usage semantics.
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 0%, and the description names no parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the field names and types. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify update semantics or how the optional, nullable parameters behave individually.
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 states a specific verb ('Correct'), a precise resource ('the most recently logged expense'), and a distinguishing constraint ('without needing its id'). This clearly differentiates it from update_expense and is not a tautology.
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 'without needing its id' implicitly contrasts with update_expense, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, such as when to prefer undo_last or update_expense instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.