update_expense

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

The description adds a warning icon and explicit 'confirm with user' instruction beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It details the CRUD behavior for sub-entities (lines/payments), providing transparency on data modifications.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) yet packs essential information: purpose, user confirmation requirement, and sub-entity behavior. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the warning and action.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 7 required, destructive action, output schema), the description adequately covers the update behavior and sub-entity rules. However, it lacks details on parameter format, return value, error states, and idempotency, which could be improved.

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%, and the description only explains the behavior for expense_lines and payments parameters (update/create/delete rules). Other critical parameters like expense_id, date, draft, provider, etc., remain undocumented, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 tool updates an expense, using the verb 'Actualiza' (updates) and the resource 'gasto' (expense). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_expense and delete_expense by focusing on update behavior.

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 instructs to confirm with the user before execution, aligning with the destructive nature. It explains the behavior for lines and payments (update/create/delete based on ID presence). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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