wafeq_expenses_mark_as_draft_create

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the material side effect: the expense's journal is removed from the ledger, and it states the operation is reversible. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a state-change tool.

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 content is front-loaded with the action and endpoint, but the same fact—removes journal and returns to draft—is repeated three times. It should have been a single sentence plus the reversal note, so the redundancy hurts the score.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with annotations, the description covers the action, the ledger side effect, reversibility, and the inverse tool. Minor gaps (e.g., explicit id format or behavior if already draft) do not prevent correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema has no property descriptions, the endpoint pattern /expenses/{id}/mark-as-draft/ and the repeated 'expense' context make clear the only parameter is the expense identifier. For a single obvious id parameter, the description sufficiently compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Moves a posted expense back to draft') and identifies the resource and endpoint, and the phrase 'Undo with mark expense as posted' distinguishes it from the sibling posting tool.

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?

It clearly signals the intended use case: a posted expense should be returned to draft, and it explicitly names the inverse operation. It doesn't list formal exclusions, but no real ambiguity exists for such a targeted status-change tool.

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