edit_expense

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'edit' implying mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, error states, or whether partial updates are allowed.

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?

Single sentence is excessively brief, providing minimal information. While the tool name implies edit, the description does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name.

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?

With five required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no behavioral details, and an unprovided output schema, the description is grossly incomplete for an edit operation. Missing critical information on what fields can be changed and response behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning to the five required parameters (id, date, amount, category, description), leaving their semantics entirely to the parameter names.

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?

Description states 'Edit expense in database', clearly indicating a modification operation on an expense resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools add_expense, delete_expense, and list_expenses, though it doesn't specify that it updates an existing expense by ID.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Missing context on prerequisites, required authorization, or edge cases like non-existent IDs.

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