expensify_create_policy

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

Annotations show destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'WRITES to Expensify' (consistent) and importantly discloses the dry-run behavior, which is not in annotations. This provides critical behavioral context.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then important behavioral note. Excellent structure.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately mentions return of policyID. Annotations cover destructive nature. Dry-run handling is explained. For a simple 2-param tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Create a new Expensify policy (workspace)' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like list_policies or get_policy by focusing on creation.

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?

Explicitly notes 'Dry-run is currently ON — this will preview only', guiding the agent to use this tool for preview rather than actual creation until dry-run is disabled. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons.

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