ajouter_depense

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation requires 'expenses:write' permission, that amounts are passed as text (e.g., '240.00'), and that it attaches to a chantier via chantier_id. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not detail side effects or return values.

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 consists of three short clauses that front-load the action and provide only essential details. Every sentence contributes: the action, the permission, the format, and the relation. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects an agent needs: the operation, permission, amount format, and chantier association. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but given the simple creation semantics, this appears sufficient for basic invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable semantics for key parameters: 'Montants en texte' clarifies that monetary amounts are strings, and 'Rattache à un chantier via chantier_id' explains the foreign key usage. While other parameters like 'designation' and 'fournisseur' are self-explanatory by name, the description could have elaborated more systematically, but the most critical ones are covered.

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 starts with 'Ajoute une dépense' (Adds an expense), which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'depenses' (list) by indicating this is the create operation. The mention of permission and chantier linkage further clarifies scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when adding an expense. It provides sufficient context by stating the permission and the chantier linking behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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