ofw_create_expense

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the expense appears immediately to the co-parent, that the server cannot delete it, that an ambiguous failure means EXPENSE_UNCONFIRMED, and that the first call may perform NO write in fallback mode. These are critical behavioral traits not inferable from readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint alone.

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?

Three dense sentences cover purpose, side effects, failure handling, confirmation behavior, and retry guidance without redundancy. The most important operational warning, the no-retry rule, is front-loaded near the beginning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the full call lifecycle: preview mode, confirmToken, repeat call, ambiguous failure, and verification via ofw_list_expenses. For a mutation tool with confirmation semantics and destructive implications, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that a repeat call must use the same arguments and that the confirmToken must only be passed after explicit user approval, which reinforces and extends the confirmToken schema semantics. It does not need to restate amount or description since those are fully documented in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Log a new expense in OurFamilyWizard,' and clarifies that it is a money claim appearing in the shared ledger. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ofw_list_expenses and ofw_get_expense_totals.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it instructs not to retry after an ambiguous failure until ofw_list_expenses confirms the expense did not land, and it explains the confirmation flow with a two-step fallback. This is concrete operational guidance beyond a generic description.

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