accelo_update_expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Update' but never states whether this is a partial or full replacement, what happens to fields not supplied, whether the caller needs specific permissions, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and the parameter list is terse with no filler. Structure is a plain docstring dump rather than prose, but every line carries information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter surface but omits mutation semantics, permission requirements, and effect-on-unset-fields. The 'fields: Additional fields to return' hint partially addresses output, but the behavioral gaps remain.

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 document all seven parameters, including the required id and the accepted 'yes'/'no' values for billable and reimbursable, which the schema does not convey. It stops short of explaining partial-update semantics or the format of 'fields', so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing expense') that an agent can immediately match to the expense family. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling update tools or clarify scope relative to create_expense/delete_expense, so it falls 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus accelo_create_expense, accelo_get_expense, or accelo_delete_expense, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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