Add Expense Expenses Post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/mutation but discloses nothing about required permissions, duplicate handling, validation rules, or side effects such as whether the expense is immediately persisted or visible to other users.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. It is appropriately sized for what little it attempts to say.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here, but for a five-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the description leaves the agent without the field-level or behavioral information needed to call it correctly.

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% with five parameters (amount, date, category, note, sub_category) and the description mentions none of them. No format hints are given for date, no currency/unit hint for amount, and no allowed values for category, leaving every parameter undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

It states a clear verb and resource (add an expense), so the basic operation is unambiguous and it does not overlap with the list/summarize siblings. However, it adds nothing beyond what the tool name already conveys and gives no sense of scope, such as what constitutes a valid expense or which fields are needed.

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, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling tools list_expenses and summarize_expenses. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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