Добавить расход

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says what the tool records. It does not state whether the operation is a mutation with side effects, whether an unknown category/account name creates a new record or fails, what defaults apply, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter note. It is efficient, though the parameter hint could have been folded more naturally into a broader usage statement.

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 six-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it never explains return behavior, error conditions, or how name-vs-id resolution works for account/category. The only parameter elaborated is amount, leaving an agent under-informed before a mutating call.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description usefully compensates for the undocumented 'amount' parameter by stating it must be positive and giving a decimal format example. The remaining parameters (account, category, date, currency) are already explained in the schema, so the description adds only marginal value there.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Записать расход' — record an expense), which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_income or add_transfer, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as add_income, add_transfer, or add_currency_exchange, which are the most likely confusion points. The agent gets no exclusions or prerequisites for calling this tool.

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