add_expense

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations by requiring user approval before calling. It also notes the required inputs, but does not describe effects on balances or successful/error response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, list requirements, and note the approval constraint. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The description covers required and optional fields plus approval. It could benefit from mentioning how to obtain account IDs (e.g., via list_accounts) and what the tool returns, but given the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably 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 baseline is 3. The description recaps required and optional parameters but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., date format, amount positivity).

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 specifies the verb 'Add' and resource 'expense transaction to ZenMoney', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_income and add_transfer by mentioning 'expense'.

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 states that account, amount, and date are required and other fields are optional, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct to alternatives like add_income or add_transfer.

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