update_expense

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

The description implies a mutation but provides no details on side effects, permissions required, or whether the update merges or replaces fields. With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise (5 words) but at the expense of essential information. It does not earn its place as it omits critical details such as parameter usage, return behavior, or optional field handling.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema. The description provides no context about return values, update behavior (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), or error handling. It is severely incomplete for an update operation.

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%, and the description adds no information about parameter meaning, format, constraints, or default behavior. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing expense entry'). It differentiates from siblings like add_expense (create new) and delete_expense (remove). However, it lacks specificity on which fields can be updated.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for updating an expense.

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