更新记账

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses only that it is an update. It does not state whether this is a partial or full replacement, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to fields that are omitted.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is technically concise. However, its brevity comes from omission rather than discipline, and it contains no front-loaded context that would help an agent decide how to call the tool.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine safe update semantics or parameter meaning from it at all.

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% for 10 parameters, and the description only says "fields" without naming a single one. Key semantics such as the meaning of phaseIdx, projectId, splitWeeks, splitStartWeek, and the 支出/收入/采购 enum are left entirely unexplained.

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?

"更新记账记录字段" restates the tool name (expense.update) and title (更新记账) without adding any substance. It does signal a mutation on an expense record, but gives no sense of scope and no differentiation from siblings such as purchase.update, todo.update, or recurring.update.

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 tool rather than the many sibling update tools, and nothing about the prerequisites involved in performing a partial update (is id alone enough, are unspecified fields left untouched?). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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