rm_update_expense

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats the mutating nature without adding new behavioral context. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether null fields reset values, required permissions, or side effects.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler. It is about as concise as a description can be.

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 5-parameter update tool with no parameter descriptions, the single sentence is insufficient. It does not mention that all fields except expense_id are optional, how partial updates behave, or how this tool relates to sibling expense tools. The annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, but not the operational details an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning, but it names none of the five updatable fields or the required expense_id. Parameter names and types are self-explanatory to a degree, but no additional meaning, constraints, or format details are added.

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 uses a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a logged expense item'), so an agent can tell it modifies an existing expense rather than creating or deleting one. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rm_create_expense or rm_delete_expense, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The sentence only states the action, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list when this should be chosen over create, list, get, or delete expense tools.

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