Add Expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral context such as validation rules, required vs optional fields, date handling, or side effects. It only restates the operation and discloses nothing beyond the tool name.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it adds little information beyond the title 'Add Expense', so its brevity comes at the expense of usefulness.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this description is radically incomplete. It lacks required/optional field guidance, defaults, behavioral effects, and any differentiation from sibling tools.

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 mentions no parameter details. Amount, category, description, and transaction_date receive no semantic guidance, leaving an agent without information about formats, constraints, or optionality.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('an expense to the expense tracker'), which clearly communicates the operation. It also distinguishes this tool from its siblings like edit_expense, delete_expense, and list_expenses by naming a distinct action.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this tool is for adding expenses, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives. With siblings including 'credit', the description provides no routing cues or exclusions.

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