Create an expense

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write operation is expected. The description confirms this with 'Records an expense' and adds the paid plan constraint, which is additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return behavior, error conditions, or other operational details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. 'Needs a paid plan' is a valuable, non-redundant addition. The first sentence 'Records an expense' is somewhat redundant with the title but still clear and acceptable.

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 create operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It does not explain what the created expense represents, what a successful response includes, or any required setup beyond the paid plan. It also lacks guidance on how this tool relates to other Clockify expense features.

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 describes 5 of 7 parameters (date, amount, project_id, category_id, workspace_id) with 71% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information. Since the schema covers most fields and the two undocumented ones (notes, billable) are self-explanatory, the description does not need to compensate significantly.

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 states 'Records an expense' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from other Clockify tools such as list_expenses or log_time. The tool's name and title reinforce the same action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage (recording an expense) and adds a prerequisite ('Needs a paid plan'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The paid plan requirement is useful context but not a full usage guideline.

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