bort_expense_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses defaults (spent_on=today in BORT_TZ, category=other) and the return value (new project margin), but says nothing about how the project is identified (project_id vs project_name), currency handling, or required authorization for a mutation.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by compact input-format and default notes and the return value. Efficient, though the packing of amount/currency/date/category details makes it slightly list-like.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the financial input formats and defaults reasonably well. It is incomplete on project identification and currency, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains amount (ruble string format «1 200,50»), amount_minor (kopecks), spent_on default, and category_code default, but leaves comment, currency, project_id, and project_name completely 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 specific verb + resource (add an expense to a project) and immediately scopes the operation to a project entity, which no other sibling tool handles. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description, and no sibling tool competes for expense creation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus other write tools, nor any prerequisites such as project resolution or required permissions.

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