edit_expense

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

No behavioral details are provided beyond the fact that it edits an expense. There is no mention of side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing fields or if there are any constraints or error conditions. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden but fails to disclose these aspects.

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 with no redundant information. It conveys the core purpose and the partial-update behavior in two short sentences, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple edit operation, the description is adequate. It clearly states the essential behavior and the schema covers parameter details. It does not mention return values, but given the simplicity, this omission is acceptable.

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 already provides descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'New date', 'New note'), covering the meaning. The description adds the semantic nuance that omitted fields remain unchanged, which is a helpful clarification but does not significantly augment 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 edits an existing expense by ID, which distinguishes it from adding or summarizing. It does not explicitly mention which fields can be edited, but that is covered in the schema.

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 phrase 'Only pass the fields you want to change' implies partial updates, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus adding a new expense or summarizing expenses. The usage context is implied, not articulated.

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