Edit Entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation (fixing an amount) but does not disclose required permissions, reversibility, whether it overwrites the existing amount, or any side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it is too terse for a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or schema descriptions. It is concise but under-specified, so the structure is fine but the size is inadequate.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and only a one-sentence description, critical context is missing: what happens on success, error cases, permissions, and parameter details. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description does not provide enough to use the tool confidently.

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% for both parameters. The description references 'amount' as the field to fix, implying it is the new value, but says nothing about entry_id or the format/constraints for either parameter. It partially compensates for amount but leaves entry_id completely 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 states a specific action (fix/edit) and target (entry's amount), distinguishing it from siblings like log_entry and delete_entry by focusing on correcting an existing amount. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage when an entry's amount is mislogged, but provides no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., delete_entry vs edit_entry). There is no guidance on how to choose between this and other entry tools.

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