expense_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a new expense entry,' which implies a write operation (creation), but does not cover critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation or ID return). For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence, 'Add a new expense entry,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity (14 parameters, 5 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full operation.

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%, meaning none of the 14 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. While it implies parameters like 'expenseId' or 'amount' through the action 'Add,' it provides no semantic details, usage examples, or explanations for complex fields (e.g., 'category' enum or 'recurringFrequency'), leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Add a new expense entry' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('expense entry'), which is adequate. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'expense_add_vendor' or 'expense_create_budget', making it vague in context. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name, but lacks specificity about what constitutes an 'expense entry' beyond the basic action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'expense_add_vendor' or 'expense_create_budget' available, there is no indication of prerequisites, context (e.g., for recording transactions vs. budgeting), or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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