add_recurring_expense

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but says only 'Add' without disclosing side effects, interaction with generate_due_recurring_expenses, or defaults such as day_of_month=1. It confirms a create operation but nothing else.

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 short sentence with no fluff, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is far from complete; it does not explain what a recurring expense is, how scheduling works, or what the output schema contains.

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 mentions no parameters, leaving the meaning of fields like category, day_of_month, and subcategory entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb 'Add' and resource 'recurring monthly expense' with a frequency qualifier, distinguishing it from the sibling add_expense for one-time expenses. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_expense or list_recurring_expenses, and no mention of prerequisites or scenarios. Usage is only implied by the word 'recurring'.

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