update_expenses

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. It does disclose the AND logic and the requirement for both a filter and a value, which is useful. However, it omits important behavioral details such as what happens if no expenses match, whether omitted values remain unchanged, and any idempotency or authorization concerns. This is an adequate but not rich behavioral description.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause earns its place. It communicates the core action, a mandatory constraint, and the filter combination logic without waste. Excellent brevity.

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?

This is a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, so the description needs to cover the essential invocation rules. It does state the filter+value requirement and AND semantics, which are critical. However, it does not clarify the role of expense_ids, nor does it explain behavior when multiple rows match, no match, or whether updates are partial. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotation support, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic grouping by distinguishing 'target filters' from 'specified values', but it does not explicitly map which parameters fall into each group. This leaves ambiguity, especially for expense_ids, which could be interpreted as either a filter or an update value. The description therefore provides only marginal added value over 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 the tool updates expenses matching target filters with specified values, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_expense, delete_expenses, and list_expenses. The critical constraint (at least one filter and one value) adds important purpose clarity.

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 provides clear usage context: updating existing expenses, with a mandatory rule that at least one target filter and one update value must be provided. It also explains filters are AND-combined, which guides selection of parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the highest bar.

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