expensify_update_policy_categories

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specifics: 'WRITES to Expensify' and 'Dry-run is currently ON — this will preview only,' providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: first sentence states purpose, second explains actions, third adds behavioral context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits adequately for a write tool. However, it lacks details on the response format. No output schema exists, so a brief note on expected return would improve completeness.

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?

With schema coverage at 67%, the description adds value by explaining the action parameter's effect and noting that maxExpenseAmount is in integer cents. This complements the schema but could include more detail on categories object fields.

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 it adds, updates, or replaces expense categories on a policy. It distinguishes between merge and replace actions, which differentiates it from sibling tools like expensify_update_policy_tags.

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 description explicitly explains when to use merge vs replace, including a warning about replace's destructive nature. It also mentions the dry-run mode, but does not contrast with other policy update tools.

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