Edit Expense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden alone. It usefully discloses patch-like partial-update behavior ('Only the fields provided... will be updated') but omits other behavioral details such as required identifiers, validation, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the partial-update caveat earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required from the description. The schema plus partial-update note give a minimally usable picture, but with no annotations and no parameter explanations the definition is not rich enough for full autonomy.

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 adds no meanings for transaction_id, amount, category, description, or transaction_date. It only says fields provided will be updated, which is a behavior note rather than parameter-level guidance.

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 action (edit) and target (existing expense), and the partial-update note differentiates it from add/delete. It doesn't name sibling tools or enumerate editable fields, 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?

The phrase 'existing expense' implies the tool is for modifying records already created, which gives some selection context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer add_expense, delete_expense, or credit, nor any exclusions.

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