archive expense

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the operation is reversible, preserves linked data, returns a restore_id, requires an API key, and costs $0. It also explains the idempotency requirement for request_id. These are meaningful disclosures that go beyond the bare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags and help the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 compact three-sentence structure (including the parenthetical cost/auth note). The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the idempotency instruction and then operational constraints. Every sentence contributes information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, idempotency, authentication, and cost. Since an output schema exists, it need not detail return values, and the description mentions restore_id anyway. It could mention that archived expenses can be restored via restore_expense, but that is an optional improvement. For a single-resource archive operation, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate. It does add semantics for request_id ('use a new one for each intended action') and expense_id (implies 'owned expense'), but it does not explain the 'reason' parameter at all. The schema itself only describes idempotency_key as an alias, so the description only partially fills the gap. It is not completely unhelpful, but it could do more.

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 verb 'archive', the resource 'expense', and the specific scope 'one owned expense', which distinguishes it from sibling archive tools for assets, events, trips, etc. It also adds key behavioral details (reversible, preserve linked data, return restore_id) that make the purpose unambiguous. The name alone would be vague, but the description pins down exactly what this tool does.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it is for archiving an owned expense, it is reversible (implying not for permanent deletion), and it instructs to use a new request_id for each intended action, which is an explicit usage rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_event or restore_expense, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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