记一笔

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 is a mutation (新增) with only 'amount' required, yet it says nothing about side effects, whether records affect budget/analytics, validation failures, or what is returned — and the amount range it cites merely repeats the schema's min/max.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The brevity is a virtue in form even though content is underspecified.

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?

Nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 44% schema coverage — the description is far too thin for this complexity. It supplies the type default but omits the split/allocation parameters (splitWeeks, splitStartWeek) and project/phase linkage, which an agent cannot call correctly without.

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 coverage is 44%, so the description needs to compensate but mostly does not. It adds one genuinely useful detail not in the schema — type defaults to 支出 — but leaves note, phaseIdx, projectId, splitWeeks and splitStartWeek entirely undocumented in both places, and the amount range duplicates 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 新增收支记录 (create an income/expense record), which is enough to tell an agent what it does and separates it loosely from expense.update/delete/list. It does not explicitly name siblings or scope itself against purchase.create, which also creates records, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus expense.update or purchase.create, and no preconditions mentioned. The reader must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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