create_expense

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

The description correctly indicates a write operation ('create'), which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It also discloses a prerequisite (service_id from get_project_services). No annotation contradiction. Could mention potential side effects or idempotency, but annotations already cover safety.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word is useful, no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 6 required, no output schema) and complete schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the essential information: what it does and a key prerequisite. It could mention possible errors or response format, but it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the need to call get_project_services for service_id, which goes beyond the schema description. This compensates and provides practical guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new expense record'), the resource ('expense record'), and the system ('Productive.io'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the expense domain and providing a prerequisite step.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use get_project_services to find a valid service_id first. This provides clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., if the goal is to list expenses).

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