boond_expenses_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'update an existing expense report' and does not disclose partial vs. full update semantics, status transition rules, permission needs, or what response the agent should expect.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with the action, containing no filler. It is concise, though the brevity results partly from omitting substantial guidance rather than from compressing rich content.

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 five parameters, a nested period object, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is insufficient. An agent would have to infer most behavioral and parameter semantics from names and types alone.

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 mentions no parameters. It adds no meaning about the required id, the purpose of total, period, status, or resourceId, or how those fields interact during an update.

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 names a specific verb (update) and resource (existing expense report), so the core operation is clear. It is distinct from create/search/get siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or describe scope beyond 'existing'.

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 usage context is provided. There is no guidance about when to use this tool over boond_expenses_create, boond_expenses_get, boond_expenses_certify, or boond_expenses_reject, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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