accelo_create_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Create a new expense' and does not disclose permission requirements, whether the mutation is idempotent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens to related objects. With 10 parameters and no annotations, the behavioral picture is largely absent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then a parameter list, which is reasonable structure. But 'Args:' formatting is a docstring artifact rather than a well-structured description, and several entries are redundant with the schema. It is not bloated, but it also is not tightly authored for an agent.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major context gaps: valid values for against_type, the meaning/format of fields, whether billable/reimbursable are typed as strings for yes/no, and what the API returns. It provides required-field markers but not enough for an agent to confidently construct a valid call.

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, and it does list each parameter with a short gloss and required flag. However, several glosses are pure restatements ('title: Expense title', 'type_id: Expense type ID') and crucial semantic details are missing: against_type's valid values, fields' expected format, and date_incurred's unix timestamp is noted but not the timezone/units. The list adds marginal meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for 0% coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new expense.' That is clear and distinguishes it from accelo_update_expense, accelo_list_expenses, and accelo_delete_expense by name/verb. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from siblings or describe what an 'expense' means in this domain (e.g. against a job or activity), so it stops short of a 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?

No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided. It gives required-field markers but never explains the context in which an expense should be created (e.g. against a job, purchase, or activity) or how it relates to siblings like accelo_create_activity or accelo_create_purchase. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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