update_expense

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an expense' only confirms that this is a mutation operation, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens if the expense does not exist, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 is a single, grammatically complete sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; given the nested body object and mutation semantics, more explanatory content is needed. It is not a tautology like 'Process,' but it borders on minimalism.

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 mutation tool with a nested body parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema parameter coverage, this description is woefully incomplete. It provides no guidance on constructing the body, interpreting the id, handling errors, or understanding the response. An agent would have almost no information beyond the name itself.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 50% — the body parameter has a description ('Request body passed through to Bigcapital'), but id has none. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how id should be used or how the body should be structured, beyond the opaque note already in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update an expense.' This distinguishes it from siblings such as create_expense, get_expense, list_expenses, and publish_expense. However, it provides no additional scope or context beyond what the tool name already implies, so it does not reach the level of a fully informative 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer update_expense over create_expense or other update_* tools, nor does it address any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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