rm_create_expense

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as required associations, default values, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is perhaps too sparse for the complexity of 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 tool with seven parameters, five required, and no schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention which fields are required, what is_billable defaults to, what date format is expected, or how this expense creation relates to categories and users.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining the seven parameters, but it does not. The phrase 'project expense item' vaguely implies project and expense-related fields, but it gives no detail about project_id, user_id, amount, date, category, notes, or is_billable.

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 'Log a project expense item' clearly states the action (logging/creating) and the resource (a project expense item). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rm_list_expenses, rm_update_expense, and rm_delete_expense, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other expense-related or creation tools. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is for creating a new expense, but no context or exclusions are given.

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