edit_expense

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

No annotations were provided; the description adds a key behavioral constraint that PaymentType cannot be changed after creation. It does not disclose other side effects, permissions, or whether updates are immediately saved, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and essential fields, with a one-line note about an important restriction. No wasted words.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is brief. It covers the core purpose and a key constraint, but omits details about the 'draft' parameter's behavior, how lines are manipulated, and the result of saving. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but the description could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description lists updatable categories (date, memo, etc.) but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'Modify' and resource 'existing expense (Purchase)', and lists specific updatable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_expense or delete_entity.

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?

Description indicates the tool is for modifying existing expenses and lists what can be updated, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like edit_bill or edit_invoice, though the resource name implicitly differentiates.

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