mark_expense_paid

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it automatically fetches the expense, sets paid=True for all payments, and updates. It also specifies the payment_date format (yyyy-MM-dd). No contradictions with annotations.

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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and a warning emoji. Each sentence serves a purpose: action, process, and date format + user confirmation. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and an output schema exists, the description covers the main behavior and the payment_date format. However, it omits details about the payment_method parameter and does not mention the return value, though the output schema may fill that gap. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It partially does by specifying the payment_date format (yyyy-MM-dd) and implying the role of expense_id. However, the payment_method parameter is left unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Marca todos los pagos de un gasto como pagados' (marks all payments of an expense as paid). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool update_expense_payments by claiming it is faster and more automated, providing a clear verb-resource-scope definition.

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 explicitly mentions when to use this tool (to mark all payments as paid quickly) and names a faster alternative (update_expense_payments). It includes a confirmation step ('Confirmar con usuario'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or other alternatives beyond the one mentioned.

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