record_cash_purchase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does ('Records a cash purchase') without disclosing side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or what happens after recording. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. Every line adds value, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 good parameter coverage, the description lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. With no output schema or annotations, the tool is underspecified—users are left unsure about when to use it versus siblings and what happens on execution.

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 description compensates for the schema's 0% coverage by providing brief but meaningful descriptions for all parameters, e.g., 'amount: Purchase amount (excluding tax)' and 'tax_code: Tax code to apply (default: GSTIN)'. However, it does not elaborate on allowed tax codes or the role of entity_name.

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 'Records a cash purchase (expense) transaction,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like record_cash_sale by specifying 'cash purchase' and 'expense,' though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_supplier_bill or record_client_invoice. The description implies cash purchases but does not discuss exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

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