create_expense

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create an expense card' (mutation) but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the output schema contains. The existence of an output schema is known but not described, leaving uncertainty about the return value.

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 very short: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the only parameter. No fluff or redundancy. It could benefit from a structured format, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks details about what fields can be included in fields_json beyond matterId, whether any lookups are needed, or how the output schema relates. The presence of sibling tools like get_expense_lookups suggests more context is needed for effective use.

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 meaning by stating that fields_json is a JSON object and that matterId is required. However, it does not specify other possible fields or the exact JSON structure, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 'Create an expense card,' which conveys the action and resource. It also specifies that fields_json is a JSON object with a required matterId, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_ap_bill or create_invoice, but the resource name 'expense' is distinct enough.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ap_bill or update_expense. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The only hint is the required matterId, implying it's for a matter, but no further context.

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